2013-02-14
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of residents of Pearl Retirement Village and Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries staff from Berrimah Farm. Both groups are undertaking tours of Parliament House. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you. We hope you enjoy your time here and the visit.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I will say a few words before we start Question Time. The last two days in Question Time have been rather robust, which is fine; however, I will not be accepting frivolous points of order and warnings will be given. When seeking a point of order, I do not always see you if I am looking to one side so you need to be audible. You need to get the Speaker’s attention if you are trying to make a point of order.
Also, I will not tolerate unparliamentary comments about parties, groups or organisations because they are, indirectly, the individual. I will not tolerate any groups or parties, government or opposition, calling each other liars or words of that nature.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Chief Minister for his broken promises, the pain he is causing and his arrogant dismal of the very real concerns Territorians are facing as a result of his mean-spirited decisions.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government accepts the censure motion from the opposition and we postpone any other government business to take this censure motion on immediately.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Thank you for the invitation.
I am sorry members of the Chamber; I did not have time to ask one more question before we went to the censure motion. So the public knows the question, I was going to ask the Health minister, Dave Tollner, if he would make a pledge not to knife the current Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and if his colleague, the member for Braitling, would make the same pledge that there would not be a leadership challenge after the Wanguri by-election. We are hearing loud and clear the knives are being sharpened for Terry Bills and Robyn Lambley…
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member knows full well she is obliged to refer to members of this Chamber by their electorate, not their names.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. Opposition Leader, refer to members by their electorate. Please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, Madam Speaker. I move that the Chief Minister be censured for his broken promises, the pain he is causing and his arrogant dismissal of the very real concerns Territorians are facing as a result of his mean-spirited decisions.
What we saw during Question Time was a display of arrogance and inability to answer direct questions. We got the waffle and the roundabout colourful expressions from the Chief Minister, but no real answer to the Territorians who are suffering under the dramatic cost of living increases from the decisions he and his Treasurer have made under the advice of the Renewal Management Board: their mates who are being paid $1m in six months.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, could you please pause. I acknowledge and welcome in the gallery the Year 8 Sanderson Middle School students accompanied by Ms Tammy Llewelyn. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you visiting Parliament House and hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: Hear! Hear! What a great school Sanderson Middle School is. I am glad to see you here.
The real decisions made by the Chief Minister and his sidekick, the Treasurer, were made under the advice of the Renewal Management Board, the faceless men in the back room being paid $1m for just six months – and not just paid $1m, their luxury accommodation is being covered as well. What is that? Is it $1000 a week at the Esplanade high rise? We know they are paying for two, but we are hearing - this is where they hide the truth from Territorians - others on the Renewal Management Board are having their luxury accommodation bill paid as well.
They have ‘fessed up to two, but we heard there are definitely three, perhaps four. Come forward with the truth on that, Chief Minister, in your response to the censure motion. You have been hiding and dodging that question for some time. Respond and let Territorians know of the luxury accommodation being provided for the Renewal Management Board. You have ‘fessed up to two, but are there more? Are there three or four? Are they all being provided with NT Fleet vehicles to drive around in?
While you are at it, Treasurer, if you are going to contribute to the censure motion and defend the indefensible, are you driving around in an NT Fleet vehicle? Is that parked in the basement, and under what conditions do you receive it? Members of parliament are only entitled to their electorate vehicle, so please feel…
Mrs Lambley: Pool car.
Ms LAWRIE: It is a pool car. I pick up on the interjection. The Treasurer is driving a pool car. Under what conditions? You are only entitled to your electorate vehicle, Treasurer, you are not entitled to a government pool car. No minister has ever been entitled to a pool car. Your conditions of employment are in the Remuneration Tribunal decision. You are only entitled to an electorate vehicle or, if you wish to hand that in, you get a car allowance. You are driving a pool car…
Mrs Lambley: When I need to.
Ms LAWRIE: When you need to you drive a pool car. We have a confession in the censure debate that the Treasurer is accessing public, taxpayers’ resources she is not entitled to. That is an extraordinary admission.
It is interesting, because we are hearing this open and accountable government with the commitment of, ‘We will be accountable, we will be open, we will be honest with Territorians, we will be transparent’ and we will change the estimates process of this parliament. This is the estimates process they argued for in opposition. The CLP, in opposition, argued vehemently for the estimates process this parliament has. Now, we are hearing they have drafted up changes to the estimates process.
Come clean, Chief Minister! Tell us in the censure response what you are doing to estimates. Let the public know to what extent you will go to hide your misuse of funds.
We have just had the Treasurer admit on the record today in parliament she is misusing taxpayers’ funds, allowing herself use of a car to which she has no entitlement ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am looking for a copy of the censure motion. I have checked the desks around here and it has not been circulated. I am unsure what we are supposed to be responding to. Has the motion been circulated? Okay, it has not.
Madam Speaker, perhaps we should pause this debate until the motion has been properly circulated otherwise it would be unfair on honourable members.
Madam SPEAKER: We will pause.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I guarantee I will speak for the full extent of the clock so the pause is unnecessary.
Madam SPEAKER: No, we will stop the clock. Could you please stop the clock, Mr Clerk?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This motion has now been circulated. It does not have the attached required signature. Can the honourable members opposite make this motion conform with standing orders?
Ms Lawrie: I am signing this version for you.
Mr ELFERINK: Could the signed version be circulated please, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Mr Stokes, can we have that circulated, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have now received a copy of the censure motion with the appropriate signature and I thank the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: Start the clock please,
Mr. Clerk.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, in all my time in government, when the opposition led a censure motion we were happy for it to proceed while it was photocopied and distributed because we knew the person leading the censure motion would avail themselves of the full time on the clock. It would be extraordinary if they did not. That was some weird move by the caped crusader on the government benches, the man who is personally seeing to the wellbeing of every Territorian. Bless the caped crusader.
The stunt is not going to save the fact that in the early part of the censure motion the Treasurer admitted she is availing herself of a pool car to which she has no entitlement. What really sticks in the craw of public servants listening to this debate is they have had their cars taken from them by this government.
This town is talking about the mean and vengeful actions of a government out of touch and out of control. People who need a car to undertake their duties have had them taken from them. This government is ensuring the Treasurer who lives in Alice Springs and comes to town for sittings and other ministerial business, as had previous Labor ministers - Peter Toyne was in Alice Springs, a busy man; he came to parliament for sittings, came to Darwin for business all the time, including Cabinet meetings as did Karl Hampton. They never availed themselves of a pool car.
Alison Anderson, who sat on the government benches for Labor did not because we knew none of these people were entitled to one. Their entitlements of office are spelt out in the Remuneration Tribunal Decision. Whether you are a minister or a backbencher, a member of parliament is only entitled to access an electorate vehicle or, if you hand that in, which a few of us have, the allowance.
You are taking an entitlement, Treasurer, to which you have no entitlement and, at the same time, your mean-spirited and nasty government has being ripping vehicles off public servants who need them to do their job and have had them in their employment arrangements for years. I will not name the public servants who have approached me about the extraordinary removal of cars from positions where it impedes their work because of one factor: fear. Fear is gripping the public service across the Territory. Whether they are in Darwin, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs, it is the talk of the Territory because they have seen vengeful, mean-spirited and nasty actions from the Terry Mills government.
People in the public service see governments come and go from power. That is democracy; they are used to it and they serve the government of the day. They cannot believe the vengeance they have seen across the public service and are fearful, and that fear is almost immobilising. It is very much the talk of the Territory about the mean-spiritedness - people have been ripped out of their positions and put in a corner. People will not talk to them, you have to shun them; you have to ignore them because they are tagged as Labor supporters.
We have seen sackings not just at the CEO level, but at different levels of management. Yes, those people have gone quietly because they want to live in the Territory; they want to stay here and get another job and they know there is a vengeful and mean-spirited government in the Territory now.
Labor never behaved like that. We removed one CEO and that was it. We did not go on the hunt. I remember when a CLP senior staffer…
Mr Mills: Go on, elaborate please. It just came back to mind, did it?
Ms LAWRIE: No, no. I remember when a CLP senior staffer had a falling out with the then Opposition Leader, Terry Mills - a big blue - he was punted out of the office of the Opposition Leader. What happened to him? He was given a job in the public service. We were not mean-spirited, we did not say, ‘You are CLP, a senior advisor to the Opposition Leader so we will not touch you. We do not trust you’. He had skills and he got the job. He had a family and he got the job. Unbelievable!
The broken election promises are a litany. The cost of living - we had the weasel words of the Chief Minister in parliament this morning saying, ‘We promised we would cut waste and reduce debt’. He is stepping away from the notion somehow he promised to lower the cost of living. There were newspaper, television and radio advertisements. They all exist; they have not been wiped magically like they might have been from your mind. You promised to reduce the cost of living yet in Question Time today, when asked about reducing the cost of living, it was. ‘Oh no, we promised to reduced waste and debt’.
Let us go to reduced waste. How on earth do you reduce waste when you add 12 departments? Anyone who knows budgeting of departments knows if you increase departments you are increasing your on-costs: your staffing cost, corporate and branding costs. We had the nonsensical changing of the name of the Department of Children and Families then changing it back. That was two sets of branding changes very quickly. The costs for that are enormous. Then, of course, after all that they decided, ‘No, we will scrap the department altogether and make it the Office of Children and Families and shove it into the Department of Education’. Everyone working in that area says it has not worked. It is a complete and utter shemozzle and that is a kind way of putting it. The consequences of that bungling and increasing cost - not reducing waste, increasing it - are slashing the child protection services budget to the non-government organisations.
NTCOSS has lost 50% of its budget. Funding to non-government organisations was slashed by 5% on Christmas Eve. There was 24% across services designed to assist families and children at risk. When you are not at the front end dealing with the children of families at risk what happens? They slide into the crisis and become acute cases in the child protection system. That was the whole point of the Little Children are Sacred reports and Growing them strong, together: to reform the system. You have crashed through that, torn it apart and have not reduced waste. You have increased cost by foolishly changing the branding of the department twice, then changing it a third time to make it an office.
There are 12 additional departments. If you exclude the statutory authorities of the Commonwealth, this government has more departments than any government in the nation. How is that reducing waste? When you say you will reduce debt, you had the media and other commentators for a little while until you handed down your mini-budget which saw an increase in debt over the forward estimates. Everyone said, ‘We were sold a pup’.
You say we were going bankrupt. We had a AA+ stable outlook from Moody’s, the fastest growing economy in the nation, the entire non-financial debt levels, including the Port Authority, Power and Water and the general sector - all your government agencies - all together and the debt costs 8% of revenue to service. How would anyone feel if they were spending 8% of their income to service their mortgage or rent? You are in a good shape. Independent economic commentators all point to the Territory being in good shape.
Cut through the spin cycle of the CLP and they are wrong. They are using their spin to justify breaking their commitment to Territorians during the election to reduce the cost of living. The Power and Water debacle of Terry Mills is a point in case, hiking tariffs up on the evidence of the Renewal Management Board. That was not a comprehensive tome imbued in evidence. The only factual information in the Renewal Management Board’s progress report was the same information contained in the PEFO, the pre-election fiscal outlook. The figures the Renewal Management Board came forward with were the same figures the Under Treasurer - who was sacked - released prior to the August election. The pre-election fiscal outlook has the same figures.
The difference in the Renewal Management Board report is its suppositions. It said, ‘Here are emerging issues that will cause the compounding debt problem’. One was repairs and maintenance requirements across police facilities. They should have chosen the health system’s repairs and maintenance requirements, or looked at the education system’s repairs and maintenance requirements. Any government managing their books and liabilities knows you have a growing repairs and maintenance burden because your buildings are ageing. Police was one example they used. Why they chose that is curious to me.
Part of every budget cycle when a government sits around the Cabinet table to work out priorities is also to consider repairs and maintenance. To say, ‘There is a $48m liability there’, - as I pointed out, you make decisions around the Cabinet table each budget based on what your spending envelope is. You say, ‘Here are the priorities. What gets up in the police request? What gets up in the justice request? What gets up in the health request?’ The real demand pressure is not even mentioned in their report so how good are they?
Health is the highest demand pressure point on any Territory budget growing by between $20m and $40m per annum in demand depending on how much downward pressure you put into the health system. Downward pressure is managed by new systems and practices. A new system and practice about to be put in place to reduce the acute bed block and costs at RDH was the medi-hostel. This short-sighted, mean-spirited government stopped a hostel designed to reduce costs at Royal Darwin Hospital because those patients currently in acute beds - under hospital jargon it is called bed block - are not well enough to return to their community whether it is the Darwin community, the Tiwi community or anywhere. They are not well enough to be back there but not so sick they require full nursing in an acute bed. You have axed it; it was a saving.
You grow the systems to put in place savings. The child protection preventative measure of supporting children and families at risk was to end up with savings in the acute end: the real neglect and harm cases. However, you do not get that because your actions have not been based on evidence, they have been based on what you are being advised by the faceless men. They say, ‘Do this, do that’, and we have to do it that way. It is not based on evidence; there are no studies behind it.
The Labor government put up - for the first time in 20 years - Power and Water tariffs. If you listened to the Chief Minister in Question Time today we ignored it, we did nothing. We did not ignore it. We found the most highly-regarded regulator in Australia at the time, Andrew Reeves, and employed him to go through Power and Water’s financial state. He made a set of recommendations and we increased power tariffs by 18% in one year and 5% the next. We increased water and sewerage tariffs by 30% across three years. We did the first massive reset of tariffs in 20 years. At the time I was Treasurer and copped all the flak from the CLP for it. I made the point, reasonably I thought, that both CLP and Labor governments had not done the work on the tariff resets which had caused such a significant reset in 2009. I was fair.
In stark contrast, I based that tariff reset on a report from an expert with evidence in it, provided industry briefings on it, released the executive summary in detail, and put the expert before the media for scrutiny. What do we get? We do not get a report from an expert based on evidence for the tariff adjustments. We get unsubstantiated rhetoric from the CLP. It is extraordinary!
You went down that path and we get it. You want to reap dividends out of Power and Water; you want to make it as profitable as quickly as you can so you can reap the dividends you did when last in government. CLP, we get it. You want to fatten it up for sale. We get the model you are following. It has been a liberal model around Australia: fatten it up, privatise it and pump up the coffers with revenue from the sale.
We have seen it happen elsewhere, it is in the liberal DNA. We get what you are doing, but the consequences are what you are refusing to tackle. The consequences of your hiking up prices are that people cannot afford their Power and Water bills. Businesses cannot afford their Power and Water bills and are constrained in how they can pass those costs on to their customers, particularly in retail where we live in an online competitive environment. They are jammed and are going to the wall.
People are literally packing up, selling up and leaving based on this. You think that is just Labor spin. Whatever I say, because I am Delia Lawrie and Labor Opposition Leader, I must be wrong. Get out of your ivory tower and listen for yourself. It is real and it is happening!
Terry Mills, get on the doors in Wanguri. I have been doorknocking in that electorate. I have met many people who have told me the impact it has had on them and people they know who are leaving.
I have met people at lawn sales. Do yourself a favour, attend the lawn sales around Darwin for the next month and ask them why they are going. I have been to lawn sales, I have heard it directly. You think I am making it up because you do not want to know. You are in a bubble of denial and privatisation will be more pain to come.
Wherever privatisation of a utility has occurred interstate there have been significant tariff increases to follow. That is what Territorians are frightened of. They are really upset and angry about what you have done already. They can see through your spin and rhetoric and are frightened about what is to come, particularly when your Treasurer handed down a mean-spirited mini-budget cutting education and cutting into children and family services. When she said, ‘Oh, but there is more to come’, referring to the budget due this year, people were horrified.
You are slashing teacher positions; you have reduced funding to schools. Bush schools are telling us about their funding reductions. We are trying to negotiate with them so they can go on the record. The only thing holding them back at the moment is fear of losing their jobs. In the bush, where there are one or two positions, people know who has spoken. That is the only thing holding them back. We have it on our Job Watch site; we know them and are in contact with them. Guess what, members opposite? Some of those who have contacted us are in your electorates. These people voted for the CLP yet have seen significant cuts to their schools. The fact you stand in this bubble of denial is appalling.
When you ignore the firefighters and the cuts you have made - the firefighters, who are saying, ‘Do not close Humpty Doo Fire station’ - you risk lives in the rapidly developing rural area because volunteers, as good as they are and fine Territorians they are, have other jobs and commitments and are not trained to deal with structural fires or road emergencies. That is the work of the Humpty Doo station. They go around during the day ensuring rural residents are putting in firebreaks – preventive, important fire work. You will hear this on the weekend and I am sure you do not want to hear it from me. I took the time to meet with firefighters after your decision and speak directly to them. Did you, Chief Minister? When you looked a little surprised at the protest rally and the detail being spoken of, was that the first time you were hearing it, Chief Minister? It is your portfolio; you are responsible for that decision.
The rescue vehicle at Palmerston with the Jaws of Life and the two firefighters there will go with the instruction to decommission the rescue vehicle. How is decommissioning a vehicle savings? It is capital, it has already being spent, and you are ignoring the consequences to people’s lives for what amount of savings? Have you quantified the savings to the firefighters?
You have ignored the fact the Australian Nursing Federation said at the protest rally that nursing jobs have been lost. These are frontline services. This is a broken promise; you said front line would be safe. These are frontline agency nurses. We know hospitals rely on agencies nurses as well as their staff to meet nurse to patient ratios. Those crucial ratios of care to save lives in our hospital system have been cut; they have been made redundant. It is not the Labor Party saying it but the Australian Nursing Federation. You will not believe them because you are in your bubble of denial.
You have escalated public drunkenness. I know you like to pretend you have not, all is good, the BDR never worked and there has been no change since the BDR. Open your eyes, get out in the streets, there is much more drinking. Listen to the tourism businesses around the CBD, which are desperate. People are doing horrendous things around their business premises, things they had not seen for some time because the BDR had been kicking in with effectiveness. Change the statistics all you like, people are not stupid, they can see the drunks are back.
The line-up at bottle shops came back when you scrapped the BDR. People who own licensed premises, bottle shops, had to put on security such was the overwhelming demand of people on the Banned Drinker Register who came flooding in. Is that okay? Stay in your bubble of denial because that is where you feel safe and secure, but step out into the real world and you cop it. I suspect you cop it a fair bit, and I suspect it is more than you let on because you are happier getting on a plane out of here.
You rub salt into the wounds with all these cuts, all these broken promises on the basis of, ‘It is debt we inherited from Labor’. To rub salt into the wound people watch you pay your mates $1m for six months and fund their luxury accommodation. Are they driving around in fleet vehicles they are not entitled to or is that written into their contracts? Can we see their contracts? Are you going to put that on the record? Will you be open and accountable about that? How long are you keeping them on for? There is a guessing game: is it February, March, is it longer?
Mr Deputy Speaker, It has been a very real concern. People are genuinely suffering as a result of this mean-spirited government and its mean-spirited decisions. If you were not so mean-spirited, the first thing you would have said at the protest rally on Tuesday was, ‘I am not closing the Humpty Doo Fire Station, and I am not going to remove the rescue vehicle’. You heard the real risk to lives consequences from the firefighter and you did not step up. That is why the crowd was shouting at you.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have no concern about the tenor of this censure. It is, quite plainly, a thinly veiled attempt to reinforce some points endeavoured to be made by the Opposition Leader. However, there is a case which needs to be answered and we are prepared to answer it. It is not in my nature to work too hard to deconstruct - in the words of the famous member for Barkly - the structure of this speech, what was endeavoured to be achieved by it, and how it all works to make the grand point.
There is a problem which has to be dealt with. You started, in your ill-prepared way, trying to draw into question leadership. You are not really in a very strong position to be talking to us, questioning us, and me, about leadership, member for Karama. You dwell in this space; you seem to thrive in this space. You come alive when you are in the world of rumours and add a little more to it. You really come alive when you are in the gutter; it is when you enter your own.
The community talks and there is seepage of information about your management style and concerns about how you are faring in your capacity to lead from opposition. These stories are in circulation too, but I will not spend time dwelling on that because you seem to have a greater preoccupation with it.
There is a fair amount of traffic on the wire regarding your style, your support, and the underlying anxiety about how things are faring and the contingency plans, which I understand are fairly well-advanced. You really are not in a strong position when you consider the brand you represent and the capacity for treachery with your boss in Canberra, whom you must obey, and is likely any day to be stabbed in the back by the bloke she stabbed in the back.
Heaven knows what goes on behind the scenes, but it leaves a very important question when it comes to leadership. Where will that leave your precious Labor Party selection of Nova Peris? The Leader of the Opposition is a great supporter of Julia Gillard and her captain’s choice of Nova. What will happen in the circumstance where the bloke who was knifed does the knifing and there is a new Prime Minister in the lead-up to this election announced in a peculiar fashion at the same time the vacant seat of Wanguri was announced, on the same day. There is something pretty odd and it seems to always be this smell around leadership. How you manage you internal decisions and business leaves most people disgusted with the Labor organisation. That seeps out and does not look good.
In the event there is a change, what is your position? Can the Leader of the Opposition assure the parliament Senator Trish Crossin will be given another chance of pre-selection if Prime Minister Gillard is replaced? These are important and real questions rather than the childish attempts at smear and innuendo that come with the predictable line around questions of leadership.
Questions of that nature from the Leader of the Opposition do not satisfy the real needs of the community which wants to see the government, and the Chief Minister, take their job seriously and make the necessary decisions
You have asked me to get out there. I am out there as much as I possibly can be. I have been in parliament a long time. I listen to people. I understand what decision-making is about. I am connected to people; I feel the pain and discomfort of people. I take that quite seriously and personally. In the long-term interests, and out of regard and respect for families and the future of the Northern Territory, particularly those young tradesmen and young people in their early stages of employment, we have to make decisions today to give them the capacity to be part of something very important.
In dealing with this rambling censure, it is important to go to an issue raised during Question Time. During Question Time, there was a disturbing revelation about the amount of public money put aside to service a large number of community organisations. That is its purpose; it is public funds reserved for a range of important community groups. Nearly $1m was put aside; in fact, $912 000.
The Opposition Leader gave us some insights and instruction into how Budget Cabinets make decisions. Obviously, the Labor Budget Cabinet decided on $912 000 to support a range of community groups. However, they cannot help themselves; they reached into that jar, took $803 000, and spent it in two months. The former Labor government spent the greater portion of that allocation in the lead-up to the election. When the government changed, we went to that line item and saw the jar was practically empty and, astonishingly, the greater portion of that was removed in the lead-up to the last election.
I had been to a number of community groups and was wondering how Labor members could be throwing money all around the place as if it was their money they were generously providing. It was actually people’s money they were providing and misappropriating. The gratitude is, ‘It is our money and we are giving it away, aren’t we jolly good fellows?’ There has been a change of government and we are left with an empty jar…
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr MILLS: This illustrates the attitude and personality of the former government. We now have this chiming; now she comes alive. The censure debate was fairly deadpan, meandering with inane nasty snipes here and there with no real structure to it. Put all that aside, it is very important because I know the personality of this Labor organisation. They are trying to say, ‘If there is no money left, many organisations such as the Glenti etcetera, will be left without money’.
Be absolutely clear on this, they will not be left without money! They have been left terribly exposed, as has the Northern Territory, by the mismanagement of the Labor Party and its capacity to dig into and appropriate funds for political purposes in the lead-up to the Territory election. None of these organisations, particularly the Glenti, has anything to be concerned about.
However, you need to be concerned because every one of these organisations will be told the circumstances in which we make these decisions. They will be supported. Make no mistake, if the Top End Pet Expo wants $1000 they will get it, but they will also be told why the allocation was not there and that Cabinet had to put money back into the jar. The Darwin RSL Sub-Branch and Anzac Day events - there will be money for them ...
Ms Lawrie: Like there was every year.
Mr MILLS: Yes, but what you are missing is an allocation was made and there was an expectation that these amounts would be provided. I cannot believe you have this terrible blind spot which keeps popping up and prevents you from hearing what has been said. There was an allocation but you used it. Then, when they seek money from the jar, there ain’t none there because you took it away!
I now give the assurance that those important community events have nothing to be concerned about. You should be concerned because it will be made clear there will be support for important community events.
It is typical of the Labor organisation to engender further fear and anxiety and stir up anger in the community. It is ill-founded because important community events such as the Glenti will be supported but they will be advised of the circumstances in which that support comes.
These events existed long before the Labor Party came to government. They have been established, and have thrived and grown in the community. They will continue to do so under a Country Liberal government, make no mistake about that.
Then we had the rambling censure. You did not get yourself organised. You started off going down one path, ended up going down another, and it is the same old stuff. It is as shallow as a puddle. It is a mile wide and an inch deep. There is not much to it. It is the same old superficial tirade of rubbish from the member for Karama and members opposite since they graced this Chamber. Now they grace the opposition benches.
You do not seem to worry about community interest or the effect that distortion and misinformation has on eroding the confidence and core strength of a community. There is a good reason why hard decisions have been made. Good people who are given the opportunity to provide leadership are obliged, in the interests of building community cohesion, to advise the context in which difficult decisions are made. Leadership is to leave a legacy and strengthen your community. You are more than happy to wring your hands with delight when lies and misinformation go out which set one part of our community against the other. It is like the almost unforgiveable story which went out, fostered and fertilised by the Opposition Leader - fingerprints all over it - creating the lie that the Country Liberal Party was giving gifts to people in the bush and fostering this ferment of hostility and anger in our community. That is unforgiveable.
It is a lie, and we have an almighty challenge to bring our community together. I cannot believe the Labor Party says one thing but inside there is something else. That is bad and has the capacity to foster racism in our community by allowing lies to be told and not corrected.
The morale of the community is damaged by that approach but you do not care. You do not worry about that and that worries me. You do not care that there is a debt problem. You would rather craft some superficial smart booklet which tries to ferment greater concern in the community than is warranted.
We are in difficult times but our community has dealt with difficult situations before. Look at the great Northern Territory community. Look at the stockmen in the bush, their connection to the land, and how hard it is living in remote communities. Our older citizens have survived difficult times, difficult economic circumstances during World War II, cyclones, all types of tragedies and disasters in our community. The families have held together, yet you do not mind trying to erode the glue holding the community together with misinformation and mistruths in the hope you might gain something to stand on. How could you stand on that? You are telling people their jobs are at risk and people are mean and nasty and out to get you. It is quite the opposite. We are endeavouring to put the Territory in a stronger position so the great opportunities for the Northern Territory can be realised.
I think of young tradesmen. Some left school before Year 12 and went into a trade. Now there is an enormous opportunity for them. I often think we need to get ourselves in a better position. I do not want to be a Chief Minister who looks back to see we are spending $1m every day to service debt when that $1m could be strengthening families, building our community, putting opportunity into people’s hands, increasing their capacity to be decision-makers and problem solvers, removing roadblocks in the bush to decision-making and empowering, and encouraging people to be involved in their story rather than just observers.
We are about removing the crippling debt burden. That is why we are making tough decisions to ensure there is capacity for grassroots organisations, notwithstanding the theft, the removal of that allocation for your own use in the lead-up to the election. Grassroots organisations will be supported and I can see the excitement because I have been around long enough. I know you guys. You will contact every Greek citizen and say, ‘The nasty Country Liberal Party will cut funding to the Glenti’. We are not going to cut funding to the Glenti. I know your type. We are not going to do it. However, we will explain the circumstances in which these decisions and support have been provided.
I value public servants, as does this government, and we are working with them. Denied access in many respects when in opposition, one of the joys of coming to government has been going through departments and meeting the good people we were unable to meet before and thank them for their contribution to the Northern Territory. Yes, these are difficult times. It is a time of change. People, instinctively, do not like change…
Mr McCarthy: They are not happy and do not trust you, Terry.
Mr MILLS: Is this your contribution to the debate?
Mr McCarthy: Yes, a contribution for you, Chief Minister.
Mr MILLS: I heard that from the group out the front and it is fine; it was no surprise. I understand that, but thank you for your first-class contribution to the debate.
There are many fine people at all levels working in the public service and that has been one of the joys of coming to government. I acknowledge there has been change. We have consistently explained the context in which the decisions were taken and recognise it has had a human effect. These decisions have been made for a good reason and good people will instinctively understand we are heading to a better place, a sustainable place and it puts capacity back into our community to solve problems.
However, to tell lies about what is happening in the public service, foster fear, feed anger and hatred and encourage people to spread information based on lies and an insatiable desire to score a political point is almost like people who laugh when someone falls over and hurts themselves. That is the attitude. You do not mind hatred and anger and would like to feed it because it is to advantage you. If you want to win by standing on that ground - I would not want to stand on that ground any day because you …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr MILLS: You will have your chance in this grand debate in a moment.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition enjoyed the courtesy of an uninterrupted speech. I ask members opposite to contain themselves to a dull roar.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister has the call.
Mr MILLS: The book of misinformation and mistruths - do not worry about it. You like to win by cheating. You have an anecdotal grab bag of bits and pieces of information to construct this narrative. On page 2 you said we guarantee 600 public servants will be sacked. That is wrong. The 2012-13 mini-budget projects a decrease of 600 employees over the five years to 2015-16. No one has been sacked. Have you ever heard of natural attrition? Do you know how many people leave ...
Mr Gunner: Claire Gardiner-Barnes was natural attrition?
Mr MILLS: Mount your argument. This is childish stuff.
Figures released by the Commissioner for Public Employment show there were 19 989 full-time equivalent public servants in the December quarter. While being 50 less than the record high of 20 039 full-time equivalents in the September quarter, it is still 63 higher than the June quarter, the last full quarterly report before the August election. It does not worry you that you can circulate it and cause anxiety and concern, but it is based on a lie.
This shows Labor is willing to stoop to deception and spread fear among public servants and the community. I commend public servants for holding together and for the contribution they make in challenging times. However, there is a growing admiration you would not see because you are not looking for it. These are true Territorians involved in the great story of the Northern Territory and they are supported.
You have to - these facts might trouble you a bit - use real money to pay people’s wages. I would prefer real money to pay wages than use it to service debt at $1m a day. What can you buy for that? I will give you some work to do. Think about what you would do if you had $1m a day. How would you spend that? You blokes would probably spend it on May Day celebrations or something. What could you do to empower and enable members of our community to be involved? You could do all types of things. That is what this is about.
To build a pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mount Isa, imagine that...
Ms Lawrie: Is that a promise?
Mr MILLS: Not at the moment.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: I am responding to your censure debate. It would cost $700m to build that pipeline. With that debt gone, in 700 days you could build that pipeline. In less than two years, instead of interest repayments on debt, you could build a pipeline the Territory could own and all the gas flowing through that pipeline across to the eastern seaboard, onshore and offshore. Activity would surface in remote communities like Ampilatwatja, which I visited. I love that place; I have a beautiful painting on my wall. I learnt there is gas behind there. If you had a pipeline, gas could go into it. There would be real jobs for local people, real involvement, money and gas flowing. We could own the pipe and we would have it forever charging a tariff. Anyone who wants to send their gas through that pipeline - it is ours. That could happen in the Northern Territory but not under Labor. They are trapped in a corner trying to find some small point to giggle about when they get to the fourth floor. ‘We got him there’. ‘That was a really nasty thing to say.’ ‘Did you like that?’ ‘Oh yes, that was great’ …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr MILLS: You had your opportunity. You are texting someone for goodness sake! Take this seriously.
Ms Lawrie: You raised Ampilatwatja. Are you giving them their council as you promised?
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: This is really quite embarrassing. I have been in parliament for over 13 years. Keep maintaining your ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: What are we dealing with here?
I will ignore you blokes because you are not worth paying much attention to. You do not mind spreading misinformation. However, if you want to gain ground through the tactics you are employing, I would not like to be standing on the ground you are, not at all. You try to frighten parents who love their kids telling them money has been ripped out of schools. It has not ...
Ms Lawrie: Yes, it has.
Ms Anderson: No, it has not
Mr MILLS: Yes it has, no it hasn’t, yes, it has. Look at the figures! Listen to the facts! What type of leader are you? ‘I heard someone say the CLP is really nasty’. ‘Did you?’ ‘I heard that too’. Is this the debate we have? This is really quite embarrassing! What were all your years and aspirations to be in public office for? Why did you want to be here? Do you believe it is a debating club?
Then, there is the censure motion. You have, ‘This affects the running of our schools, our hospitals, our police stations, with 600 people sacked’. This is crap! You then said, ‘This affects our schools, our hospitals, and police stations’. People who trust civic leaders think, ‘Is that right? The Country Liberal Party will sack 600 public servants’? We will sack them just like, ‘You, you, you, you, you – go, because we enjoy that’. What will happen as a result of that? ‘You will leave the schools and get out of the hospitals. All the nurses will be gone, and you will close a couple of police stations’. Some people would read that and think, ‘Is that what will happen?’ because they trust civic leaders ...
Ms Lawrie: Her words were, ‘600 will be sacked’. They are her words on the 7:30 Report.
Mr MILLS: It is hardly worth debating with you. It is like debating with some naughty, nasty little kid. You have 600 sacked and the direct connection to schools, hospitals, and police stations. You know that is not true, but it does not matter because it gets your point across ...
Ms Lawrie: It is true. The nurses federation, firefighters.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Opposition Leader, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: They are not mentioned there, that is the point. You are running that story ...
Ms Lawrie: Firefighters, teachers.
Ms Anderson: Kick her out!
Madam SPEAKER: You are on a warning, member for Namatjira!
Mr Styles: You can sit there all day and say what you like and get away with it. We say one thing and are on a warning.
Mr Chandler: Put me on a warning.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, you are on a warning!
Mr MILLS: I have Territorians in mind. I am blocking what I see over there because it is not a good sight. They do not sound good either.
I am sure you guys have tried it 100 times, ‘Hey, listen kids, we are on social media, we are real cool. Believe it or not, even though they have said they will not we reckon they will cut funding to BassintheGrass because they do not like kids either’.
You have tried 100 times to get that story out! There is funding for BassintheGrass. ‘Yeah, but we do not trust you’ ...
Ms Lawrie: Are you confirming it?
Mr MILLS: I will see you at BassintheGrass.
Ms Lawrie: You are confirming it. Excellent.
Mr MILLS: It has been confirmed umpteen times!
Ms Lawrie: No it has not. No media release.
Mr MILLS: What we say we will do, we will do. We will do it; it is done. That does not stop you, ‘Give it another shot, seed this stuff out there, try to frighten people, try to upset people, make them angry, that is the community we want’. That is not the community we want ...
Mr McCarthy: What about BassintheDust?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Barkly!
Mr MILLS: You will have a chance for your great contribution to this magnificent debate, young fellow, in a moment. You will be like this one, ‘What about this? What about that? I just thought of another point’.
This is not how you conduct debates in parliament, mate. You should know. You told us you have not been here long enough so you do not know these things. This is not how it works, mate…
Mr McCarthy: Are you telling me?
Mr MILLS: Yes, I am telling you.
Mr McCarthy: Thirteen years?
Mr MILLS: Yes, that is right. I am still here and continuing on because we are going somewhere.
This censure motion should not gain the respect of any family in Wanguri because the issues need to be dealt with. It begs the question, Labor Party in government? No, if the Labor Party was in government the issue would still be there. Look at your track record. Do you believe Territorians think, ‘Yes, give those guys a go; they will deal with the debt problem?’ They created it! ‘Give those guys a go, they will deal with the cost of living, they will bring the cost of housing down’. They created the problem: a 200% increase ...
Ms Lawrie: Scrapped our schemes.
Mr MILLS: Rubbish! Not supported.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired. As it is a few minutes to midday, we will adjourn for the lunch recess.
Debate suspended.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Arnhem today, 14 February, pursuant to Standing Order 25. The member is attending to ceremonial business in her electorate.
Leave granted.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, today we are censuring the Chief Minister for his broken promises, the pain he is causing Territorians, and his arrogant dismissal of real concerns Territorians are facing as a result of his mean-spirited decisions.
As local members, we all would have heard countless stories from constituents and others outside our electorates. Many people from CLP electorates are talking to us about the real pain they are feeling as a result of the CLP decision to break election promises and significantly increase the cost of living in the Northern Territory.
There are two issues at the moment in the forefront of most Territorians’ minds. There are other issues, and I do not want to make light of them. However, the two are both broken election promises: the CLP promise to cut the cost of living, and the CLP promise to immediately remove drunks from our streets.
What is worse than a broken promise to cut the cost of living is that the CLP lied during the last Territory election. That has most Territorians – frustrated is too light a word – incensed, angry and worked up. Obviously, people are hurting over increased Power and Water bills – a broken promise. There was a promise to cut the cost of living; however, the CLP has significantly increased the cost of living. That hurts. What has made people angry is the fact Terry Mills and the CLP, prior to the election, lied when they said they would cut the cost of living because the information used to make the decision to increase power prices power by 30%, water by 40% and sewerage by 25% was available to them prior to the election.
They knew, when they said they would cut the cost of living, they were going to increase it because the information they based their decision on was available before the election. I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Chair of the Estimates Committee, Chair of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee and they went through the Power and Water books with the CEO of Power and Water, the Chairperson of the Power and Water Board, the Treasurer, the Under Treasurer and the Minister for Essential Services. All that information was on the table. The Labor government was completely open with it and the CLP had full access to it. They knew everything before the election.
When they said, during the campaign, they were going to cut the cost of living they knew they would break that promise. They lied to Territorians and that is why people are angry. There seems to be this …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, we have ruled that …
Mr GUNNER: It is a substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay.
Mr GUNNER: We are currently in the middle of a substantive motion about the fact the CLP lied to Territorians. Territorians are angry because you lied to them and there is a lack of understanding from the other side why Territorians are angry.
We had the unedifying sight the other night of the member for Araluen, the Treasurer, saying we should be thanking the Chief Minister - shaking his hand for breaking an election promise. It is unbelievable - extraordinary. Territorians are angry you lied to them, but apparently we should be shaking the Chief Minister’s hand and thanking him for breaking the election promise he made to Territorians. He broke that trust and faith and now the government wonders why it is not trusted on other issues. People have seen you lie in a very short period of time.
You made a big promise before the election; you said you would cut the cost of living. As soon as you took government you increased power prices by 30%, water by 40% and sewerage by 25%, and have significantly increased the cost of living for all Territorians. You broke your promise. You lied to Territorians and that is why they are angry. It does not get much simpler than that. That is at the heart of nearly every Territorian’s dissatisfaction. The hurt, anger and pain are because you lied to them. You said one thing, did another, and the whole time you knew you were going to do it. That hurts; that sticks in the craw of most Territorians. They do not understand why you lied to them. You knew you would increase the cost of living if elected but you lied before the election and it really hurts.
The heart of this censure motion is the fact you lied to Territorians about cutting the cost of living. You said you were going to cut the cost of living when you knew you would increase it.
All the information was available before the last election. It was there and, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Chair of the Estimates Committee, and Chair of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, I saw the CLP work through those documents with the CEO of Power and Water, the Chairperson of the Power and Water Board, the Under Treasurer, the Treasurer and the Minister for Essential Services. It was all on the table and you still said you would cut the cost of living when you knew you would increase it. That is why Territorians are angry and why we see rallies outside Parliament House. We will see more rallies and they will be louder because Territorians are convinced you are not listening, you do not get it, and you do not understand why they are angry and feeling pain.
This is a complete breach of faith and trust because you lied to Territorians before the last election. We are only six months into a new government and people have lost faith and trust in the leadership of the CLP team. They have lost faith and trust in the Treasurer and the Chief Minister because you lied to them before the last election. You lied, and that is why they are upset and angry. This pain is being felt by many Territorians and businesses.
We have all heard stories of seniors and pensioners and the decisions they have to make to pay these bills. Pensioners have told me the only way they can find money for these bills is from their groceries. They will cut back their food shopping to pay the increased Power and Water bills. I have spoken to people who are ill and require medical equipment at home. They do not know how they will pay these bills. People have come into my office saying, with the first bill in, ‘We already know we are unable to pay this. We will have to go into a payment plan with Power and Water’. This is a savage increase in the cost of living and is breaking the back of Territorians and Territory businesses. It hurts even more because the CLP lied before the last election.
It is a double whammy. It is the hurt of paying the bill and knowing the leadership team of the CLP, the Treasurer and the Chief Minister lied before the last election. That is why people are angry and feeling more pain than just having to pay these bills. You are breaking the back of Territorians and Territory businesses.
We have heard from small business the pain of having to pay these bills. On the day it was announced the butcher called in saying, ‘I am going to shut one of my shops; I cannot afford to keep them open. The cost of refrigeration is too much. I have to close up. I know these bills are going up and I cannot afford my shop – gone’.
Today, in Question Time, we heard the Wanguri Supermarket has to pay an extra $1000 a month to keep the doors open. They were given six weeks to budget for this increase; six weeks to work out what changes can be made to the operation of the business. Can they get new infrastructure, new fridges? Six weeks is not long enough for a business to make those decisions and they will be slugged an extra $1000 a month to keep the business open.
I remember it from when I lived in Wanguri years ago. It is a cultural institution. People like their local supermarket; it is where they can gossip with the storekeeper. It is their place. An extra $1000 a month is breaking the back of small business. The Minister for Business used the theory of evolution saying if you are a good business you will survive, if you are a bad business you will fall by the wayside. That is not the answer you would expect from a member of the party which claims to speak for small business.
You are breaking the backs of ordinary Territorians and small businesses trying to make their way, doing it tough. You have slugged them hard. You have significantly increased the cost to do business, to live their lives, and what hurts even more is you lied before the last Territory election by saying you would cut the cost of living...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member opposite accused the Chief Minister of lying. There is nothing in the motion which censures the Chief Minister for lying. His comments should be restrained to the allegation inside the censure motion otherwise they are unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is the convention in this parliament that in a censure you seek leave to suspend standing orders. In suspending standing orders in a censure motion, you can make accusations of lying. It does not have to be contained to the wording of the motion. That has always been the case, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: I draw your attention to several decisions by your predecessor, Speaker Aagaard, who restrained comments to the allegation made in the censure motion and ruled ‘lying’ out of order when lying was not present in the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Pause for a moment; I will seek some advice.
Thank you, members. In the interests of keeping the debate fair and honest, derogatory terms are not to be directed towards members of this parliament.
Mr GUNNER: Madam Speaker, it is clear, in talking to this censure motion, why Territorians are angry. It is clear to the opposition the CLP does not want to hear. That was made clear at the rally. The CLP members are not listening and do not understand the pain of Territorians from the decision to increase the cost of living in the Northern Territory by significantly raising power and water - 30% power, 40% water, 25% sewerage - based on information they had access to before the last election. The whole time they were saying they would reduce the cost of living before the last Territory election they knew they would increase it afterwards. That is hurting Territorians.
You might not want me to say it in the Chamber, member for Port Darwin, but people everywhere are saying the words you will not let me say. Everyone is saying it because that is what they believe. You might not want to hear it from me; you might want to gag me and others here, but that is what ordinary Territorians and Territory small businesses are saying.
They believe it 100% because they saw it. They heard your promise before the last election and saw your decision after the election. You may not want me to say it but they know what you did. You might want to stop me, but it is too late; it has gone. People know and are upset, hurt and feeling pain and anger at the government because you significantly increased power and water prices based on information you had before the last Territory election. It is mean-spirited.
The answer from the Minister for Business that good businesses will survive and bad businesses will fall by the wayside is mean-spirited. What else can we expect from a CLP that considers air-conditioning a luxury? The CLP candidate for Wanguri said air conditioning in Darwin during the Wet Season is a luxury. What else can we expect from a mean-spirited CLP which said one thing before the election and another afterwards?
What else can you expect from a government which cuts funding to charities by 5% on Christmas Eve? I doubt you can be much meaner than that on Christmas Eve. It is about as mean as it gets. You had already whacked them an extra 30% for power, 40% for water and 25% for sewerage - they pay the bills - but on Christmas Eve you also cut their funding by 5%. It is extraordinary!
Then we had the ridiculous scene in Question Time and the ridiculous media release from the Chief Minister saying the future of iconic community events such as the Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti are under threat. It was a ridiculous media release! Then, during the censure motion, you said, ‘Rumours might start’. Of course, rumours will start. You issued a media release saying the future of iconic community events such as the Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti are under threat. Of course, rumours will start but you issued the media release. It is one of the most stupid things I have seen a government do. You did it, you said it, then wondered why Territorians do not trust you on this when you said the future of iconic community events, including the Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti, are under threat.
This government cut the Arafura Games. This government cut funding to charities by 5% on Christmas Eve. This government said before the election it would cut the cost of living and after the election increased it.
You wonder why Territorians do not trust you. You are shocked. ‘We don’t know. We don’t get it. Why don’t Territorians trust us?’ You broke the trust and today you issued a ridiculous media release saying the future of iconic community events, including the Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti, are under threat and you wonder why rumours start...
Ms Lawrie: Which genius thought of that?
Mr GUNNER: Which genius on the fifth floor thought that was a good media release? Which genius thought of issuing a media release saying the future of iconic community events, including the annual Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti, are under threat? The Chief Minister says rumours might start. Rumours have started because the Chief Minister started them. He fired the gun on the rumours.
This government has broken faith and trust with Territorians because it said one thing before the election and did another afterwards. You do not understand why Territorians do not trust you. You start your own rumours and become upset when they take off. ‘Oh my God, people are talking about the rumours we started’. You issue one of the stupidest media releases I have seen and wonder why Territorians are talking about it. You started the rumour.
These are the geniuses who said before the election they would cut the cost of living and did another thing afterwards by significantly raising the cost of power and water in the Northern Territory. They broke trust with Territorians. They broke faith with Territorians but do not understand why people are angry. It takes a mean-spirited government to write to charities on Christmas Eve to tell them they are cutting funding by 5%.
The government said in Question Time today that no public servant had been sacked. My friends who have been sacked are a little shocked by that and want to know when they can return to work. We all know public servants who no longer have a job. The Territory is a small place, Darwin is a small place, people know public servants who are no longer employed - had a job and now do not - yet the Chief Minister said in Question Time no public servant has been sacked since the last Territory election. A significant number of ex-public servants are rather gobsmacked by that assertion.
We have a very professional public service which does a fantastic job. As a government, you cannot achieve things without a professional public service working with you. The former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, did not get INPEX on his own; Clare Martin did not get INPEX on her own; Delia Lawrie did not get INPEX on her own. A very professional public service worked with government to ensure INPEX was delivered in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister, in Question Time, said, with a straight face, no public servant has been sacked. Public servants we worked with, colleagues, no longer have jobs. These are professional, capable, competent public servants who are - I do not know if I can emphasise enough that corporate knowledge is critical in the Northern Territory with the transient nature of our population. We have lost decades, probably centuries when you add it up, of experience from our public service and the Chief Minister said today in Question Time no public servant has been sacked. What an extraordinary assertion.
We all know public servants who have been sacked. I know someone who was a public servant on 25 August and now is not a public servant. Sometime in the last six months they lost their job. They were not sacked, according to the Chief Minister. They would beg to differ. They wrote to me after a debate on public servants in this Chamber last year about the professional job they do, how we felt for people in departments, the culture of fear that has emerged in departments, and the lack of confidence they feel in the current government and the lack of confidence they feel the current government has in them - a real fear. They saw people walk into the office of the CEO who never returned to work. Where did that guy go? Where did that girl go?
There was a real culture of fear in the public service and we debated that in this Chamber. I received an e-mail from a public servant who no longer has a job which says:
We on this side are listening. The current government is not listening to the real pain of Territorians as a result of its decision to sack public servants and increase the cost of living despite promising to cut it. There is still the fear people feel in the streets as a result of the compromise on public safety as the government has not honoured the promise to immediately remove drunks from the streets but, instead, scrapped the Banned Drinker Register, Alcohol Courts, Return to Country and Night Patrol. They have scrapped programs which were in place.
We know the government does not support those programs but it has done nothing, despite the election promise to immediately remove drunks from the streets. Instead, the Chief Minister said you should politely ask drunks to stop doing whatever they are doing. That is the CLP’s response to the promise on the front page of the 100-day action plan to immediately remove drunks from our streets.
The Country Liberal Party does not understand why Territorians are angry with them or why Territorians are hurt because they feel deceived. They heard the government say one thing before the election, as an opposition, and afterwards do another. They are hurt, angry, and believe the current leadership team of the Country Liberal Party has failed them completely and utterly. They have no confidence in the current leadership team of the Country Liberal Party because you broke trust and faith with them. You said one thing and did another. You are not listening; not hearing their hurt or their anger.
The Chief Minister said today no public servants have been sacked. The Chief Minister is in denial about the current state of the Northern Territory, what is happening, how public servants are feeling and the mood in the public service as a result of working with this government...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Has the clock stopped? It has.
Madam SPEAKER: My apologies. Your time has expired, member for Fannie Bay.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to the censure motion initiated by the Leader of the Opposition that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Chief Minister for his broken promises, the pain he is causing and his arrogant dismal - that is what it reads - of the very real concerns Territorians are facing as a result of his mean-spirited decisions. It is a poorly written censure motion. What a joke!
We had to wait 10 or 15 minutes while the opposition got its act together and organised paperwork for the censure. Now we read the words of the censure and they do not make any sense. It is just like the opposition; they do not make sense. We all had a cup of tea while waiting and then came back to listen to the drivel from the Opposition Leader whose first comment was to say, ‘The Treasurer, the Deputy Chief Minister, uses a pool car’. Well, hello! That is of great significance to the people of the Northern Territory. I am sure everyone is shocked and horrified I use a pool car I am entitled to. I would like to see in writing where ministerial staff, including the minister, are not entitled to use a pool car. The only thing annoying the Leader of the Opposition about that is it is parked next to her car in the car park. Perhaps it is not up to the standard she expects…
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You are parked next to Millsie! I am between Dave and Millsie.
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down. There is no point of order.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, I withdraw that comment. I am sorry the pool car is parked very close to the Leader of the Opposition’s car. It is always parked there, which is why she brought it up today.
Let us talk about serious things. The reason we are in this pickle in the Northern Territory is because the opposition, the former Treasurer, the former Labor government, five-and-a-half months ago presided over a fiscal problem they tried to conceal. However, coming to government we uncovered something worse than we expected: a fiscal deficit skyrocketing to historical proportions and a debt looking to reach $5.5bn in the forward estimates. Through our mini-budget process, we have been able to bring that back to a more manageable level.
We came into government five-and-a-half months ago and went about trying to analyse the state of play with the Territory’s finances. The enlightened member for Fannie Bay, the ever so polite next Leader of the Opposition, gave us, as usual, quite a riveting speech and talked about how angry Territorians are, how disappointed they are, and what a terrible range of things we have undertaken over the last five-and-a-half months.
Over that time we have started to correct the mistakes and appalling judgment calls of the former government. We have had to use certain people and we make no apologies; we employed the outstanding expertise and wisdom of several human beings. Yes, they are old and yes, they are men, and people over the other side of the room seem to take offence to that. I will not say they discriminate, but it is bordering on discrimination.
We employed a group of human beings with great skill and commitment to the Northern Territory to assist us in a process of forensically analysing the state of the Northern Territory’s financial affairs. As the member for Fannie Bay mentioned, there were processes in place when we were in opposition to hear the reports of different people, particularly in the Power and Water Corporation, through the estimates process, what the state of affairs was in the Power and Water Corporation at that time. However, until you get to government, until you can conduct your own analysis, your own investigation as to what is happening, you never really know. You cannot take the word of the government of the day - the former Labor government - because they were hiding much and had a huge amount to hide.
What we came away with, as opposition leading into the election, was hugely different to what we found when we came to government. There were two very different stories: the pre-government perception of the state of the finances and the post-government perception after undertaking that forensic analysis.
We employed a group of people who became the Renewal Management Board and we make no apologies. They are remunerated as they should be. We are thankful they have taken time out of their lives. They live in different parts of the country, but have come here voluntarily to assist us. They found problems beyond our imagination, beyond the scope of what we thought possible in mismanagement and fiscal problems within the Northern Territory.
Critical to what we found were the revelations around the Power and Water Corporation. The Power and Water Corporation contributes 40% towards the deficit of the Northern Territory finances, which is a huge slice of the problem. We found the Power and Water Corporation was recording financial losses; it was running in a financially unsustainable way. To continue, the Power and Water Corporation would have to rely almost exclusively on borrowings to fund its capital spending for replacement as well as growth. The former government had set up a system whereby all the capital - the huge amount of capital expenditure they committed to - $1.8bn was almost exclusively funded through borrowings, which is just outrageous. In borrowings to fund capital expenditure, 50% or less is the ideal place. This government was using almost 100% borrowings to fund their capital expenditure.
This is where the problems lie. The former government resisted any advice given to increase revenue and instead borrowed, borrowed, borrowed. This is a theme of the former Labor government; they were reluctant to make any decisions around increasing revenue, tariffs or fees of any shape or form because they saw it as politically unsavoury, politically risky. They knew we had a hung parliament; the kingmaker, Gerry Wood, was the only thing keeping them in government. They were not willing to make good financial decisions because they knew they would put their tenure in government at risk.
That is exactly what they did! They ignored the advice of the former Chairman of the Power and Water Corporation, Judith King. Yesterday I spoke about communication between the former Treasurer and Judith King. Judith King advised the former Treasurer to raise tariffs - increase revenue for the Power and Water Corporation. The response from the former Treasurer was, ‘Yes, we will increase the tariffs but not until 2012-13, after the election’. We have it on record. Despite what you hear from the opposition, we know the former Labor government had every intention - only if they won the election - of increasing tariffs for electricity, sewerage and water for all Territorians. It is on the public record.
When we came to government we knew the prudent thing to do was address this very serious problem. Power and Water Corporation was running inefficiently, thanks to the former Treasurer, the former shareholding minister who had no idea how to run the corporation. She had no understanding of how to go about this business. She did not take advice. She was quite arrogant in the way she approached her role and quite negligent in the decisions she made.
We had to address the problem of Power and Water Corporation contributing 40% towards the deficit. One of the few solutions available was to look at the organisation, identify savings and efficiencies, but we also had to consider increasing revenue. We had to increase the tariffs; it was one of the few options available.
Despite the advice given to the former Treasurer in 2009 to increase tariffs by 40%, she failed to do so. Here we are, a new government, having to stand before the people of the Northern Territory and, reluctantly and sadly, break the news the former Labor government had failed them - had failed to implement incremental increases in the tariffs and we were lumped with this awful decision. All on this side of the room have lost sleep over it. It not only affects the people the Labor crew talk to, it affects our friends, our families, us, and our constituents. You are not alone in experiencing the pain of this terrible decision we had to make. However, it is the right decision.
In 2008, the Northern Territory’s electricity tariffs were around the state average. From 2008 to when we increased the tariffs, the previous government’s increases did not keep pace with the average increases for the states and we drifted down. Our electricity tariffs, by the time we reached government, were the lowest in the country. All jurisdictions across the land were prudently increasing their tariffs so their power and water utilities corporations - whatever model they had - could run in a sustainable way. You cannot run a business without ensuring your revenue and expenditure are aligning.
When we increased the electricity tariffs they came up to slightly above the national average - fractionally. The tariff increases are painful but are now sitting around the national average. We are paying no more or less than any other jurisdiction in the country. That does not make us or people facing these hefty increases in their utility tariffs feel any better. They have to come up with the money and manage things differently. Businesses have to factor in these increases, but we are all in the same boat, and, in time, hopefully, things will level out as wages increase and the quality of life throughout the Northern Territory increases with other initiatives of this new government.
The Power and Water Corporation was left in a diabolical condition by the former Labor government. Our hand was forced into making considerable increases. As the member for Fannie Bay spouted: 30% for electricity, 40% for water, 25% for sewerage. The people of the Northern Territory have been shocked by it and the Labor rally held outside Parliament House on Tuesday was a display of union members and various Labor Party supporters who feel it is our fault.
Perhaps some people will never take the time to understand the rationale for why we had to make these decisions. From my perspective, it was the last thing I imagined I would be doing as a member of the new government. Making those announcements was one of the most difficult things I have ever had to do in my political life, but I stand by the decisions. They were tough decisions but, in the long run, I am confident we have done the right thing. The former Labor Party was not able to do the right thing; it is not in its DNA. They were negligent of their duty. They were scared of the consequences, and political opportunism won out at the end of the day.
I will move on from Power and Water, but the people of the Northern Territory need to understand what happened because the critical accusation made today is we, for some reason, through our meanness of spirit, our lack of humanity, have made these dreadful decisions. That is not the case at all.
At the end of the day, if we can reduce our deficit and this skyrocketing debt path the former Labor government set the Northern Territory on, people will thank us. I remind people, thanks to Labor, we pay $750 000 a day in interest payments.
Every time I say it I am shocked by it. For such a small jurisdiction - 235 000 people - that is an enormous amount of money Labor has left us having to pay every day. It is no exaggeration; it is a fact and if we were to keep going on the trajectories left by Labor, it would have increased very quickly to $1m a day in the forward estimates. That is astronomical, unbelievable and, quite frankly, frightening. Two-hundred-and-thirty-thousand people subjected to that type of interest payment per day is almost unimaginable, but it is true. It is a fact people need to know. This is what Labor has given you and all that money paid out every day on interest payments means you are missing out.
The mums and dads doing it hard across the Territory, single people, elderly people, are all doing it tough - these are tough times. To know that huge amount of money will pay off loans and not into things that have substantial meaning and significance in your lives, things you need to enhance the wellbeing of your life, is bordering on criminal.
The Opposition Leader takes no responsibility for any of that. Apparently, in five-and-a-half months, we have created all this and the allegations in this motion stand; it is all our responsibility. However, for the public record, I tell the people of the Northern Territory that is not the case. We are repairing the problems, we are trying to address the mistakes of Labor, of the former Treasurer, the worst Treasurer in the Northern Territory. I say that with no hesitation. Our level of debt is the highest of any jurisdiction in the country per capita…
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the Deputy Chief Minister be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Vatskalis: It is a censure motion; you do not have an extension of time.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I inquired about this prior to the debate commencing. The advice I received from the Clerk was it was a matter for the House to determine whether or not there was an extension in a censure motion. The House has, I believe, determined the matter.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Previous Speakers did not give an extension of time during a censure motion.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I sought advice from the Clerk in relation to this when the debate started. My advice is there is nothing in standing orders preventing an extension if the House so desires.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice. You have the call, Treasurer.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, I will address the member for Fannie Bay’s comments. He said Territorians are angry with the new government. I believe Territorians are angrier with Labor’s mismanagement of the Northern Territory finances for many years. The smart people of the Northern Territory understand why we are in the position we are. Labor tends to belittle and underestimate the average Territorian. People get it. When I return to Alice Springs I do not hear any of this stuff the Leader of the Opposition talks about. I hear that people understand the former Treasurer really had no idea what she was doing and that is why we are in the state we are at the moment.
Territorians are angry Labor has fed them mistruths. They have misled and misinformed them about the state of Northern Territory finances and the state of the Power and Water Corporation. In those little booklets distributed for the Wanguri by-election, the opposition claims we have lied. That little booklet is a testament to the magnitude of lying from the Labor factory. It is a document called Labor lies ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is using the words ‘liar’ and ‘lies’. You have already ruled that out.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, it has been ruled. Please withdraw that comment.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw it. Instead, I will say misinformation and misleading. Territorians are also very angry that the …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have also ruled out misleading.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, if you could be succinct but careful in your comments, please.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The people of the Northern Territory understand this booklet does not contain much in the way of credible information. Territorians are angry the former Chief Minister has abandoned the ship like a frightened rat on a sinking ship. He has jumped ship and …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is offensive to a former member of parliament and to me as a parliamentary colleague.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The exercise was one of a simile, not a metaphor. She did not say he was a rat, she said he was like a rat. The exercise of a simile is a normal function of the English language. Metaphor and simile, if ruled unparliamentary, would render debate in this House almost impossible.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, if you could keep to the point of the debate.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Territorians are very unhappy with the former Chief Minister for jumping ship. Today we look across the room at an empty seat, a signal he has no confidence in his team; he could not get out of there quick enough. The member for Port Darwin said he did not even unpack his boxes. He knew he was leaving and Territorians are angry about that.
Territorians are very angry with the Nova Peris fiasco. It really upset people that the Leader of the Opposition did not back her colleague of many years, Trish Crossin. She backed Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of the country. Territorians are very angry with the Leader of the Opposition because she has no loyalty. People are very angry she allowed the Prime Minister of Australia to dictate to her team, her people and the Labor Party of the Northern Territory, who their Senate candidate would be.
Madam Speaker, the fact that we are on this side of the room and they are on that side signifies where the anger is. The people of the Northern Territory are angry with the mess the former Labor government left us in. People are optimistic, they know there are difficult decisions ahead, ones we have had to unfold over the last couple of months, but they feel the Territory is now in good hands and will be properly managed. It will be fiscally managed in a way which will put us on a strong path to economic growth and prosperity.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not normally vote on censure motions, but I will voice my opinion on what many people in the rural area are saying at the moment.
You can say what you like about whether this side, when in government, did the wrong thing or not. At the moment, there is anger with the government about what it has done which is nearly palpable. It is not an anger that means people do not accept the debt has to be paid. Most people I have spoken to accept the government had to pull back from a deficit. However, people feel we can be in deficit from time to time. If you go back in the history of this parliament you will see the CLP has been in deficit. That is how this building, State Square and the Supreme Court were built. When they built the hotels in Yulara and Darwin they needed to go into debt at times to keep the economy going. It is a bit much to say governments should not go into debt from time to time to keep the economy going.
When this building was built they did a deal with Warren Anderson and another company. It was built to keep the economy going. I understand there was a reason to go into debt before. I am not saying there was no wastage, but INPEX was coming online and to ensure the economy kept ticking over during the global economic crisis and there was work for people some input was needed.
Whether you like it or not, in my part of the world there is an enormous amount of work. It is because of the prison and the INPEX village. It is now starting at the Girraween shopping centre area where houses are being built. I sometimes have trouble crossing Howard Springs Road on my bike at about 6.15 am to 6.30 am because there is so much traffic going from Darwin through Howard Springs to work at those facilities. In this debate we have forgotten that many people are working.
I would like to see the financial benefit to the Territory of all that work. INPEX and the prison are some of the biggest projects we have ever had in the Northern Territory. I have not heard the balance to the argument that we are all going down the path of terrible debt. I am not saying if we continued the way we were going - I have seen the figures.
The previous Chief Minister, in his last speech to parliament, said the government would not have allowed the debt to continue; it would have adjusted the budget.
Most people are saying they do not disagree with the CLP pulling in from debt, but it happened too harshly. When you hit people with a 30% increase in electricity, 40% for water, 25% for sewerage and they have no way to pay because they have not had an increase in wages, they are hurting. Yes, by all means try to reduce debt, but do it in a compassionate way. The economic rationalists tell you we pay so much debt every day of the week. Fair enough, we need to reduce that. The previous CLP government, in its day, must have reduced it because when it built this it went into debt. It had to pull the purse strings in to ensure it got through.
When you go back in history, who is to blame for the high capital expenditure on Power and Water? Both sides of government failed to increase electricity tariffs for years because they were scared it would cost votes. The other side of it - I have been around long enough – is they cut the guts out of Power and Water similar to what is happening now because they believed you did not maintain things until they broke. Today we have a legacy of both governments with policies which have turned into reality because we have had to spend huge amounts of money on substations, upgrading generators at Channel Island, and bringing in new generators to Weddell.
Yes, it is big expenditure. However, if we did not have that expenditure we would not have the money to continue with the industries now coming onshore. Yes, we are in debt. Most people are saying it would be nice to get out of debt. The issue is it has been done too harshly. It should have been done in a gradual way so people could budget for it and there be some allowance that their wages would move in parallel with those charges.
I will not tell the government it should not be trying to reduce debt. My argument, and that of many people in my area, is it is too severe. It hits people too harshly and that has not been taken into account. You are doing the right thing by reducing debt, but the manner you are doing it is what most people are thinking of; they do not disagree with the idea of reducing debt.
Where it hurts now is not only have you hit people hard, you have taken their services away. I can talk about the services which should have remained and were promised by the last government. Obviously, the present government does not have much time for me, so goodbye pool and goodbye funding for Freds Pass Reserve.
However, I cannot say the closure of the Humpty Doo Fire Station is a good idea. It is more than a bus service. It is like the ambulance and the police. It is a service to protect our community and property, and the government has made a brutal decision based not on how many call-outs the Humpty Doo Fire Station has made, but because it is not willing to fund the staff required for the new Berrimah Fire Station. That is why there is a reduction in Palmerston, and staff are being taken from Humpty Doo. That is a dreadful indictment on this government’s attitude to the 20 000 people living in the rural area. You heard what the member for Goyder said about this decision: was your head screwed on when you made this decision? To add insult the government, during an election, gave Tracy Village Social and Sports Club $100 000.
It is beyond belief a government could close a fire brigade station. We have increased traffic from INPEX, and 24 hours a day you see trucks up and down the Arnhem Highway, the Stuart Highway, Howard Springs Road and Tulagi Road moving quantities of rock and gravel. Between 6 am and 9 am they mix with the traffic going to work. The same thing happens in the afternoon.
There have already been accidents with large trucks and the fire brigade is first on site with equipment although, as we know, the four-wheel drive emergency unit will be taken off the road and replaced with a large truck at Berrimah, which is further away. If there was an accident at the Bark Hut, the first people to attend would be the fire brigade from Humpty Doo. Admittedly, they are not there 24/7; they probably should be. They will attend and have the equipment if someone is trapped inside. Now the police will be first to attend and they do not have the equipment or expertise to help someone trapped in a vehicle. People will have to come from Palmerston and the truck will have to come from Berrimah. I cannot believe the government could make such a terrible decision. It does not say much for its opinion of people in the rural area.
That is what hurts me most. You can hit me if you cannot move on from the time I was, supposedly, kingmaker. If you cannot get over that and want to, theoretically, punish me by taking away some of the promises the previous government made - the swimming pool and helping Freds Pass - you live with that. To take away our fire station is the bottom line. The Chief Minister is going there on the weekend and I hope he listens to what we say. The firemen, the three local members - I thank the Chief Minister for inviting me - and the mayor will attend. I hope the Chief Minister will see this is a bad decision which lets the rural people down and people are cranky.
Another small thing, which will probably be debated next week, is the $20 fee at Motor Vehicle Registry. The minister has been announcing improvements and I congratulate him on that, but it was done without any thought.
I went to the Fibrecraft Guild and was laughed at by the Treasurer because I happened to be Father Christmas at their lunch; you wonder why that would be funny. They were telling me not everyone has a computer and not everyone wants to pay over the phone. There will be a debate on this next week and the minister is certainly bringing in changes. It highlights, again, the lack of compassion and thought that, for a small sum of money, affects the most vulnerable people in our community - some of our older pensioners - by hitting them with a $20 fee because they do not want to do things electronically. That is a shame.
I am advising you of a few things which really concern me. NAPCAN has been around for many years and looks after the welfare of children. If the government says it really supports child protection I will laugh. To reduce NAPCAN funding, an NGO organisation that has worked all over the Northern Territory for years and years - I went to Canteen Creek - I cannot think of the Aboriginal name – which has a big sign saying, ‘This is a NAPCAN town’. It was a place where NAPCAN helped establish ways of looking after children. It is not just in Darwin, it is across the whole of the Northern Territory. They were working with another company to provide a program which was part of recommendations to set up long-term programs for child protection throughout the Northern Territory. That, of course, was canned.
The other issue - this shows not everything about the cost of living is related to the budget - is about fish, of all things. I received a media release recently from Brian Manning of the Barramundi Fishermen’s Association letting me know the average punter who wants to buy barramundi and threadfin salmon will pay more as the fisheries have been moved so big boats can get further out to fish...
Mr Westra van Holthe: How do you know, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: Well, you read ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: The season has just started. There has been hardly any rain and the fishermen have not been able to catch much anyway.
Mr WOOD: Well, if you have to go out further ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: For goodness sake, if you are going to say something, say something credible.
Mr WOOD: Ask Brian Manning, he wrote the media release. I am repeating ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: His name is Peter Manning.
Mr WOOD: Peter Manning.
Mr Westra van Holthe: There is more than Peter Manning’s view in the fishing industry.
Mr WOOD: He says the price of fish will increase because you have to go further to get it. Does that not make sense? If you have to go further to get your fish the price of fish will increase? The government has made a decision to close the closer fisheries so they have to find a new place. They have not found a new place yet, by the way, but the price of fish will increase. That is a government decision and the cost of living is increasing.
The other thing I find difficult is when people talk about the group brought in to look at the debt and that the Under Treasurer was sacked. That shows, more or less, we did not trust her and needed to bring our own people in. I am not saying those people do not have expertise, but why sack the Under Treasurer? If she was such a bad person why would you re-employ her? If she is such a bad person why did she receive the Public Service Medal on Australia Day?
We sacked someone who has worked in Treasury as long as I have been in parliament, who I regard as apolitical. They remove the evidence. They then say, ‘We will bring in new people’, and many of those people are in some way associated with the old CLP government. Instead of trusting the Under Treasurer they sacked her. That gives a smell of, ‘We would rather bring our own people in so we can do what we like. If there are some difficulties in the budget we will sort it out’.
I had much faith in the Under Treasurer, Jennifer Prince. I do not believe things were hidden. I am not a great reader of budgets because they are, at times, written in a language similar to hieroglyphics. If you go through them with someone to help you, you will see we were going into debt. As the ex-Chief Minister said, that is what you would expect a budget to have written in it if we continued in the vein we were going.
This is not praising the Opposition Leader too much, but every year I would put a little …
Ms Lawrie: A wish list.
Mr WOOD: Yes, a wish list. I have done it every financial year and had a wish list of five things. I got one, the duplication of Howard Springs Road which is dragging on forever, but it is happening. I was told at the time, ‘You cannot have any more than that because we have to tighten our belts. The money spent last year was the most we have ever spent and we have to pull the budget back’.
I accepted we were coming in for tighter times. People were expecting the government would come back from the deficit. It is how you do it and what has hurt the most. You have penny-pinched on the $20 MVR fee and hit people so suddenly they have not had a chance to budget for it. I was laughed at by the member for Fong Lim for saying people would struggle to enjoy Christmas. That was the word from Vicki O’Halloran at Somerville - sometimes it would be better to take a reality check, talk to those people, and see what is happening in suburbia where people struggle to pay these charges.
There are many issues, but what has really upset people in the rural area is the closure of the fire brigade. People can accept the changes that the government wants to bring the budget back to surplus. They believe it is the wrong way; it is too harsh and is cutting back on essential services.
Another point about the Humpty Doo fire brigade is the Treasurer said, ‘It is only 100 call-outs’. The Chief Minister is trying to get the figures, but it is amazing the Treasurer says there were only 100 call outs. I asked for figures to compare with other fire stations and they cannot provide them. That means they have nothing to compare it with themselves.
They make a decision, plucked out of the air, which sounds good but they did not analyse what call outs there were. I am certain the Darwin fire service does not attend a large number of grass fires. It might do a few, but I can bet my bottom dollar Humpty Doo does. We need to see what is being said.
The real issue was not the 100 call-outs but the Berrimah Fire Station. We should remember services which save lives will not make money. They are provided as a service by us paying our taxes because we want the service. I can tell you now rural people want their fire brigade back. Over 4000 people signed the petition, one of the fastest petitions put together. The message is: if the government wants support it better do something about it because it will be struggling at the next election if it keeps making decisions like that.
I hope, on Saturday, the Chief Minister will see sense and tell the bean counters, ‘No, this will happen. The Humpty Doo fire brigade will not be disbanded’.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Division, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Is the division supported? It is not supported.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 157, I wish my dissent to be recorded.
Madam SPEAKER: So noted, member for Sanderson.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as wold prevent this House from rescinding the resolution of the Assembly in respect of the censure of the Chief Minister.
Motion agreed to.
RECISSION OF RESOLUTION
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly rescind the resolution in respect of censure of the Chief Minister.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 7
Mr Chandler Ms Fyles
Mr Elferink Mr Gunner
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Mr McCarthy
Mr Higgins Mr Vatskalis
Mr Kurrupuwu Mr Vowles
Mrs Lambley Ms Walker
Mr Mills
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the continued detention, or supervised release, of serious sex offenders who are deemed to be such a serious danger to the community that regulation of the offender is warranted post-sentence.
The community continues to be concerned about the danger posed by serious sex offenders when released back into the community after finishing their sentences. Recidivism rates amongst sex offenders are not significantly higher than for other types of offenders. However, the impact of their actions can have devastating effects on victims. The community expects government and the justice system to take actions for the purpose of minimising the possibility that such offenders will commit further sex offences. The community also expects government to make realistic, effective and genuine efforts to rehabilitate such offenders. Increasingly, the community expects government to monitor offenders to both deter offenders from committing future crimes and reduce their opportunities to commit further sex offences. These community concerns and expectations are justified and this bill is one important way this government can address them.
Currently, the NT only has one scheme that enables regulation of some serious sex offenders following the end of their period in prison. This is the scheme under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act. This scheme does not apply to offenders where victims of the offence committed were adults. The scheme only applies limited reporting and registration requirements and, in some cases, can prohibit certain activities. However, it cannot place positive obligations on offenders; for example, to attend programs, to live in certain places or undergo rehabilitation. Also, it cannot order post-release detention.
I introduced a similar bill in the previous parliament as shadow Attorney-General, which was defeated. I said at the time I would make the introduction of a similar regime a priority should I become Attorney-General. This bill delivers on that undertaking.
Legislation that allows for the detention or supervision of an offender post-sentence clearly touches on important legal principles. The concept of double jeopardy is one such principle which provides that a person should not be punished twice for the same offence. There are good reasons for such principle and the bill is not intended to undermine these well-established legal principles. Unfortunately, there are those rare individuals who pose a real danger of committing further offences of the worst type upon their release. Where these offenders can, with certainty be clearly identified, it is reasonable that the authorities be empowered to do something about it.
Mechanisms allowing for the detention or restraint of a person by the state, and which do not relate directly to the person’s conviction or sentence, already exist in the Territory and are well-accepted mechanisms within the legal system internationally.
For example, the Bail Act allows for the detention of people who have not been convicted of any offence. However, is it essential that any legislation creating a regime that allows for detention does not encroach to an unacceptable extent on the principles of the justice system and the rule of law. It must also contain safeguards and ensure the legislation is not abused.
These types of schemes have survived High Court challenges in other jurisdictions. The High Court has held the purpose and application of this type of legislation to be lawful. Further, if has held it is appropriate that the higher courts hear and determine such complex issues. We can safely rely on the Supreme Court to balance the right of individuals against the need for community protection.
The bill allows for the continued detention and supervision of offenders after their sentence has expired. The bill contains a range of safeguards to prevent the powers being abused. These include the need for two independent medical assessments, a comprehensive review process, and an extremely high burden of proof on the applicant.
I now turn to the details of the content of the Serious Sex Offenders Bill 2013. The operation of the bill is underpinned by a clear and strong objects clause. In making a decision under the bill, the court will be guided by the objects set out in clause 3. Clause 3 clarifies that the main purpose of the legislation is to enhance the safety and protection of the community, particularly victims of serious sex offences. The secondary purpose is to facilitate the treatment and rehabilitation of such offenders. The principles set out in the objects clause will guide the Supreme Court in making its decisions and are incorporated in the clauses dealing with the application processes.
The bill allows for the Attorney-General to make an application to the Supreme Court in relation to a serious sexual offender who is nearing the end of his or her sentence. The application must be within the period of 12 months before which the imprisonment sentence is due to end. The fact that a person may not be in custody because of parole, under a suspended sentence, home detention, or community custody does not affect the period in which an order can be sought.
For the court to make either a continuing detention order or supervision order it must be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender is a serious danger to the community. A convicted serious sex offender is a serious danger to the community if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence if the prisoner is not detained in custody or subject to a supervision order.
It is important to note these detention and supervision powers will not, as a general rule, interfere with the parole process or any other process under which a person is released from prison prior to the time their prison sentence is due to expire. A person will be entitled to seek parole up to the point in time when an application is made for an order under this act.
The threshold test is also an important aspect of the legislation as it defines the offenders who may, potentially, be the subject of an application by the Attorney-General. As I have said, this legislation is not aimed at all sex offenders, only those who are likely to commit further sexual offences at the most serious end of the scale. In general terms, the threshold test in the bill is that it only captures prisoners who have been convicted of an offence of a sexual nature which is punishable by seven years or more imprisonment.
Attempts to commit any of the serious sexual offences will also be captured. So too will similar offences committed in other jurisdictions. The list of offences is set out in Schedule 1 to the bill. The Attorney-General will not be obliged to apply in relation to all prisoners who fall into the criteria of eligibility under the act. In other relevant Australian jurisdictions, assessment committees have been established to identify, assess and refer prisoners for orders. Most of these committees consist of government employees, including Corrections, police officers and health professionals. These committees monitor and assess serious sexual offenders while they are still under a sentence of imprisonment and advise the relevant Attorney-General as to the prisoners who truly pose a serious risk to the community.
This ensures the schemes are appropriately targeted and avoids costs associated with unnecessary court procedures. It is proposed to establish a similar vetting arrangement in the Northern Territory. The Department of Correctional Services will be responsible for developing the guidelines around the assessment of offenders for referral to me, or any of my successors as Attorney-General, for an application. The legislation will not commence before these administrative guidelines and supporting processes are in place.
My intention is that, other than in exceptional cases, applications will not be made unless a sex offender has committed three sex offences. I consider this kind of discretion should not be regulated by the legislation. Accordingly, the bill does not try to articulate how decisions about applications are to be made.
The other main aspects of the application process set out in the bill are:
application is to be to the Supreme Court - clause 23;
matters are to be determined by civil process;
interim orders can be made at preliminary hearings – clause 30;
two expert medical assessment reports to be required – clause 25(2)(b);
if a supervision order is breached, the Supreme Court has the power to revoke it and replace it with a continuing detention order, if necessary, as a result of a change in the prisoner’s circumstances;
the Supreme Court will be required to ensure, as far as possible, that supervision orders do not conflict with reporting requirements and orders under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act and may amend inconsistent prohibition orders under that act if appropriate;
the ability exists for both parties to appeal to the Court of Appeal - Part 10.
It is important to also note the legislation will apply to offenders convicted prior to the commencement of the legislation. It will apply to them if, at the time of commencement, they are in goal or are on parole under some kind of supervisory order. Also, the legislation will apply to persons who were under the age of 18 years at the time of an offence if they are in prison or under parole for some other kind of supervision order when they turn 18 years of age.
They are the main elements of the application process. However, there are some other matters that warrant more detailed explanation.
The bill provides that continuing detention orders are ongoing indefinite orders, similar to the approach in Queensland and Western Australia. However, it is important to note that in accordance with Part 6 of the bill, continuing detention orders must be reviewed by the Supreme Court at least every two years. This is longer than the review period in Queensland and Western Australia, which both require annual reviews. My view, and that of both the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice and the Department of Correctional Services, is that an inflexible one-year review period is unreasonably short and may not be necessary for all prisoners. On the other hand, I recognise the need for a robust review process and safeguards in the legislation that allow for ongoing detention of offenders beyond their sentence date.
As well as the biennial review proposed in the bill, additional safeguards will apply which allow a prisoner to apply for a review at any stage with the leave of the court - clause 66. Additionally, the court will always have the power to specify a shorter review period of one year or more in the actual continuing detention order if it thinks fit.
In relation to supervision orders, there is a list of mandated requirements that have to be included in each order. These requirements are fairly similar across the other jurisdictions and are contained in clause 18 of the bill. These include requirements around reporting, complying with the directions of the parole officer concerning place of residence and place of work, not leaving the Territory without the permission of a parole officer, and not committing a further sex offence.
The court will also be able to impose other requirements it thinks appropriate, for example:
for the prisoner’s rehabilitation, care or treatment;
to protect victims, their families and others the court considers require special protection, such as work colleagues of a victim or children in a particular community.
Parole officers will be able to issue directions under clause 20 not inconsistent with the order relating to victims, their families, or other persons. For example, a parole officer could direct the prisoner to move on if they are in a public place where the victim is also attending.
Clause 46 provides it is an offence to fail to comply with a supervision order punishable by a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units or imprisonment for two years. This means the offence itself, being a summary offence, can be dealt with by a magistrate, but any proceeding relating to a reconsideration of the supervision order itself - under Part 5 Division 2 of the bill - as a result of a contravention must still be conducted in the Supreme Court. Both police and parole officers will be empowered to apply to a magistrate for warrants of arrest or a summons to appear before a Supreme Court if they are of the view there has been a breach.
Offences committed whilst on supervision that might lead to revocation of the supervision order include both the serious sexual offences set out in Schedule 1 of the bill and the offences set out in Schedule 2 of the bill. The offences set out in Schedule 2 are still relevantly serious offences, however, are not offences that might lead to the view that a person who has committed them is a serious danger to the community. They are considered to be of relevance if committed by a person who has already committed a serious sexual offence and who has being assessed by the Supreme Court as a serious danger to the community. In that situation, it is considered that a breach of a Schedule 2 offence is sufficient to warrant reconsideration by the court of the supervision order.
There are only three offences in this bill, being: the breach of a supervision order offence in clause 46; the offence, by a person the subject of an order in clause 108, of changing their name without permission of the Director of Correctional Services; and breach of confidentiality – clause 112. The offences have been drafted to ensure compliance with the criminal responsibility provisions of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act.
The bill also amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act so as to deal with the registration, or attempted registration, of a name change in breach of clause 104. In that case, the Director of Correctional Services can direct the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to either not make the amendment or, if necessary, reverse the amendment.
The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act, Criminal Code Act, Parole of Prisoners Act, Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, Victims of Crime Rights and Services Act and the Surveillance Devices Regulations.
This government is pleased to be able implement these reforms and provide a level of protection and comfort to the community that has been sorely lacking. The bill fills a gap in the system and allows the Supreme Court to respond to a danger in the community in a way it has not been able to do before.
While this bill may be about community safety generally, fundamentally it is all about victims and protecting them, not just existing victims of sexual assault but victims who can never be identified; those that might have existed in the future but for the operation of this legislation.
I have already mentioned I attempted to bring this reform forward in 2001 and was unsuccessful. The refusal of the previous government to implement such a regime was to the detriment of all Territorians. I am pleased to make this one of my first major reforms as Attorney-General. This government remains committed to protecting the most vulnerable in our society, particularly children and victims of crime, and this is one important step in enhancing and ensuring community safety.
This bill reflects similar regimes in at least four other Australian jurisdictions. These regimes have successfully survived challenges in the High Court and the law surrounding the issues in this bill is now settled.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 29 November 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2012 before the House today sees the CLP election commitment being delivered. The Attorney-General was very clear about that in his second reading speech. I want to be very clear at the outset that, like members on the government benches, we do not accept violent crime and believe members of our community have a right to feel safe and protected and the provision of that is a key government responsibility.
That is why, in 2008, the Labor government under then Attorney-General Dr Chris Burns, introduced the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill which fulfilled a policy election commitment to Territorians with a clear position. Its intent was to send a message to Territorians that Labor recognised its responsibility to protect members of the community, and an even stronger message to would-be violent offenders that if you cause someone actual harm there will be consequences; you will go to gaol first time, no second chances.
We are opposing this bill because we do not believe it will work any better than the bad, flawed and notorious mandatory sentencing regime introduced by the CLP in the late 1990s for property offences which became a game changer and was pivotal in seeing the CLP lose the election to Labor in 2001. The impact of that widely-condemned CLP property offender’s legislation which introduced mandatory sentencing was stark and, quoting from a document the name of which I will tell you in a moment, it accounted for up to 15% of the adult prison population at the time of its operation:
The impact of the bill which will pass through this House today will not see crime decrease. If anything, it is more likely to see it increase as police will be less inclined to charge and prosecute offenders and will seek instead, where they can, to make a lesser charge and offenders are far more likely to plead not guilty. We know when the system sees a flaw in the system the system works around it.
This bill is pretending to be tough on crime. It will send people straight to gaol and will set many offenders, particularly Indigenous offenders, up for a life of being locked up because it is at the other end of the spectrum of justice reinvestment. How will the most disadvantaged escape the cycle?
The Attorney-General will dismiss the opposition’s position on this bill, but worse, he ignores the position and all the evidence of experts and their cumulative years of experience and knowledge.
I wish to place on the record an extract from a letter I quoted yesterday from NAAJA dated 27 November 2012, addressed to the Attorney-General and a copy provided to me:
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER: I now turn to an article prepared by Mr Russell Goldflam, President of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory. The article appeared in the NT Law Society publication titled Balance in December 2012 called, It ain’t broke, so for goodness sake, don’t fix it. Mr Goldflam refers to attending one of the forums held - not in Nhulunbuy because it is not on the Stuart Highway - by the Department of Justice to inform interested stakeholders about these changes. According to the article, the Attorney-General took the opportunity to personally answer a question from the floor as to the purpose of the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2012:
Mr Goldflam went on:
He said, quoting an eminent authority in this area:
A reference for that quote is Mirko Bagaric and Theo Alexander. It is referenced in this document and I will seek leave to table it shortly.
Back to the article by Mr Goldflam:
Mr Goldflam then said:
Mr Goldflam then asked the question:
He then went on to quote Blokland J. I will not include it because I have said enough.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the article I have quoted from.
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER: Finally, I make reference to the retiring Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Richard Coates – a man with almost three decades’ experience in law - and his recent interview on the ABC 7.30 program. He said judges and courts should have discretion in sentencing because, generally, courts get it right and they should be able to exercise their discretion. He also said one size does not fit all and if a sentence is too tough or too lenient there are avenues for appeal.
The opposition members are not the only ones concerned with the direction the new Attorney-General is taking the new CLP government and law reform. Decisions are made not on evidence but on the world view of the sometimes weird and wonderful member for Port Darwin, who no doubt brings many life experiences to the job - experiences he has shared openly on the floor of this House, including his 20 years as a policeman, his personal battles in life and, of course, his studies in law which have seen him graduate with a law degree. I must also add getting work experience when he robed up to assist the Solicitor-General as the legal water boy; a most unusual and unconventional move, and one which has raised the eyebrows of many in the legal fraternity and earned him ridicule amongst some circles.
The Attorney-General’s experiences and insights into the world, society, the state and frailty of the human condition and the law allow him to bring to debates views based more on personal opinion and less on hard evidence and fact. I know he will dispute that rigorously.
In the Attorney-General’s media release of 29 November 2012 regarding introduction of the bill around assaults on workers which was passed yesterday, he said:
The Attorney-General’s mandatory sentencing bills send a very clear message to the judiciary that they are not to be trusted and not capable of doing their jobs.
The opposition will be opposing this bill, as we presented very similar bills when in government and the CLP was in opposition. The first was when we opposed the amendments to the September 2008 bill by the then shadow Attorney-General for the CLP opposition, Ms Jodeen Carney who said:
It remains our position, sitting on the opposition benches, that we do not support a bill which introduces a very complex sentencing regime of minimum mandatory sentences, removes the discretion of the court to suspend a part of the minimum sentence, and removes the rising of the court.
I place on the record the sentencing guidelines under the Sentencing Act, Part 2 in section 5. General principles. There are six principles:
(1) The only purposes for which sentences may be imposed on an offender are the following:
These guidelines are good and, I am sure, accurate. However, we know there has been, through the Attorney-General’s very tough approach to law and order, an emphasis more on punishment than anything else. I am not convinced the Attorney-General can fulfil his responsibility and obligations to meet parts (b) and (c) with regard to helping the offender rehabilitate and discourage reoffending respectively.
The courts and the corrections system must have the resources and tools to deliver these important principles of the act. How does he propose to do this? I am not assured by the joint media release dated 6 February from the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health that rehabilitation and punishment are, ‘complementary’.
While I am talking about the offender and the Sentencing Act, I also place on the record that this bill is about innocent members of the community who become victims of violent crime. That remains uppermost in the opposition’s mind. We are talking about victims of crime and the need to address that.
I return to the Sentencing Act and the general principles and sentencing guidelines. I want to highlight Part 2 section 5(2) which says:
There are 17 considerations. I will not go through all of them, just a few:
Perhaps the Attorney-General could explain in his wrap whether he will be making further amendments to the Sentencing Act because, in light of minimum mandatory sentencing, it seems these principles cannot all be taken into account by the court under the proposed changes to this bill.
What of the cost to government and taxpayers associated with mandatory sentencing? There is no doubt we will see more people in prisons as a result of this bill. The cost to taxpayers will be around about $20 000 for offenders serving the minimum three-month sentence and will rise to $110 000 for offenders serving 12 months.
Another consequence of this bill is we will see a massive increase of not guilty pleas if defendants know pleading will automatically get them a minimum gaol sentence. A direct result of an increase in not guilty pleas will see an increase in workloads for police, courts and prosecutors, and there will be more costs and even more stress on the courts. The backlog of cases will take longer to reach an outcome
The real winners will be defence lawyers. It again highlights this bill is not only a poor and ill-informed justice reform, it is bad fiscal policy.
After Labor’s amendment to the Sentencing Act in 2008, the 2009 budget saw an additional funding boost of $3.3m to ensure the Territory’s prosecution resources, court capacity and witness assistance services could deal with additional and anticipated pressure on the system. In the Attorney-General’s media release of 4 December 2012 in relation to the mini-budget, he outlined the allocation of $1.29m ongoing from 2012-13 for court support services and $650 000 ongoing from 2012-13 to support the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, I am unclear how you intend to provide adequate and ongoing resources to address a tsunami of need and resources for courts and prisons once this bill is enacted.
I am also concerned an unintended consequence of this bill will be domestic violence victims who might be reluctant to testify as victims knowing the result will be a gaol sentence for a partner or breadwinner. Perhaps we will see a reluctance of victims reporting, even though reporting is mandatory for domestic violence, for fear of knowing it will mean a minimum mandatory sentence.
Further, in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech he stated the bill provided the court may take into account a victim impact statement before sentencing, and it may include the victims wishes for the court to sentence the offender leniently.
The Attorney-General ended by saying whether a victim’s wishes are taken into account as an exceptional circumstance will be entirely a matter for the court. I wonder if we might see an increase in the number of victims expressing those wishes.
The amendments give rise to a minor consequential amendment of the Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment – SMART - Court. The amendment is little more than a typographical renumbering change. However, I will speak briefly about the SMART Court given the Attorney-General, without consultation, evaluation or evidence as to its success or otherwise in its 18-month existence, announced as part of last year’s slash and burn exercise - the mini-budget - that this court would be abolished.
I am aware the SMART Court is not an option for violent offenders, nor is it a soft option. The decision to abolish it and save $4.2m per year by 2014-15 is symptomatic of a government and an Attorney-General out of touch with reality and contemporary justice reform and would see us return to being the only jurisdiction in the country without this avenue for non-violent offenders.
The principle behind the SMART Court is to keep people out of the correction system and get to the heart of the offending; namely, alcohol and substance misuse.
There is overwhelming evidence courts such as the SMART Court reduce recidivism and save money in the long term. That evidence comes from the existence of drug courts in Australia for more than 12 years, and also places such as the United States, which developed drug courts more than two decades ago and now has 2700 such courts.
We will discuss this further when the inevitable bill comes before the House seeking to repeal the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral Treatment Court) Act 2011. That will be another backwards day in the history of law reform in the Territory.
I am curious to understand the level of consensus in the ranks of the government around policy direction. Is the Attorney-General an influential character around the Cabinet table? I suspect he is. Does the party work consensually so backbencher’s views are taken into consideration? Do all members of the new government believe this tough new regime of mandatory sentencing is a good and right thing to do - locking more people up will deliver good outcomes?
That is not the case according to Alice Springs News Online, which reported on the pre-election Meet the Candidates forum in Alice Springs hosted by the Chamber of Commerce where the member for Braitling was asked a clear question about mandatory sentencing and delivered an answer which clearly demonstrated he opposes it and is at odds with the Attorney-General.
I will read from the transcript posted by the journalist who reported, Kiernan Finnane on 8 August which provides verbatim the exchange between a member of the public at the forum, Mrs Trish Van Dijk and the member from Braitling, with a final comment thrown in by the member for Greatorex.
Mrs Van Dijk asked:
The member for Braitling replied:
Mrs Van Dijk asked another question:
Member for Braitling:
Then the member for Greatorex said:
Do they share the views of the member for Braitling, or do they agree minimum mandatory sentences are a good thing knowing Indigenous people already represent 80% of the prison population? Does the member for Arafura believe this is good law reform? What about the member for Arnhem? How about the member for Stuart? Member for Daly, I am sure you have a view on this. Surely the member for Namatjira, who is also the Minister for Indigenous Advancement, will speak in this debate. I am interested to hear the views of these members, as I am sure their constituents would. Speaking in this debate does not mean calling out interjections, it means speaking up for the people who have put their faith in you to represent their interests.
Perhaps when they speak in this debate they might enlighten us as to how minimum mandatory sentencing advances the interests of Indigenous Territorians? Do they seriously believe it will act as a deterrent and break the cycle of recidivist offending amongst some of the Territory’s more disadvantaged people? Are they comfortable with the fact this legislation will see even more Indigenous people locked up in gaol? The member for Braitling was very clear about the fact, ‘all we are doing is locking up black Territorians’.
Differing CLP party wing positions on mandatory sentencing aside, it is clear the CLP is all at sea when it comes to united and consensual approaches. One only needs to look at the train wreck which has ensued since the dismantling of the Banned Drinker Register and the apparent tussle between the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health as to who really owns the yet-to-be-seen habitual drunks policy. Will we have people with alcohol misuse problems locked up in mandatory detention and treated as criminals? The Minister for Health is on the record naming detention facilities. Will they be treated as sick people in need of treatment in a clinical facility as opposed to a corrections facility?
Either way, the CLP government, far from removing problem drunks from our streets, has allowed 2500 problem drinkers previously on the Banned Drinker Register to now have open slather access to grog and they are most definitely back on the streets causing problems and contributing to alcohol-fuelled crime, including assaults…
Mrs Price interjecting.
Ms WALKER: I hear your interjections, member for Stuart, and I look forward to your comments being placed on the record in your contribution.
As long as the CLP dithers in this area we will see the problem drinkers feature largely in this new and very tough mandatory sentencing regime which will pass into law. We know, and the government knows, alcohol is at the core of around 70% of offending behaviour.
Labor was dealing effectively with alcohol through the Enough is Enough reforms, and the Banned Drinker Register was an important part of that. Everybody except the CLP seemed to recognise that. When I say everybody I mean lawyers, the judiciary, the police, NAAJA, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the NT, all the NGOs and peak organisations representing Indigenous people like the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition and Dr John Boffa and the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory. Let us add the vast majority of ordinary Territorians who have jumped online, written letters to the editor and called talkback radio.
I have focused on the general and negative ramifications and consequences the opposition sees in this bill. I am sure lawyers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice have done a fine job technically in drafting this bill with the exception of a late discovery. The Attorney-General found a drafting error and we have amendments before the House.
I thank the Attorney-General’s office and officers from the agency for providing me with very thorough briefings not only on this bill, but other bills currently before or passed through the House.
However, from the basis of sound public policy based on evidence and in the realm of jurisprudence, this bill takes law reform backwards to the bad days of the CLP of old. There exists overwhelming evidence that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter offenders, reduce recidivism, affect retribution because the principle of proportionality is overwritten, and such laws do not enable consistency, in fact, quite the opposite. Far from the CLP’s election promise to reduce crime by 10%, we are likely to see crime increase.
Mr Deputy Speaker, when in opposition, the now CLP government said it did not believe Labor’s amendments to the Sentencing Act went far enough. We believe they go too far.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution to an important bill with important ramifications. I am sad more people are not contributing or listening to this debate. This goes to the heart of our justice system and I hoped more people would contribute. I do not support the bill and will explain why as I go through my contribution.
You would expect legislation brought before this parliament to be based on sound reasoning; real evidence is needed and a proper analysis of present legislation to see if it is working, rather than just an election promise aimed at the uninformed. This legislation fails completely on all the key ingredients except the election promise. To understand why this legislation fails you need to go no further than the second reading by the chief lawmaker, the Attorney-General. In the second reading he said:
As you can see, this legislation was based on a political election promise. The government said there will now be genuine gaol time, a consistent standard for sentencing, and a mandated bottom line. It sounds good to the uninformed: tough on crime stuff, a standard clich to win elections.
However, the Attorney-General has not shown evidence there is a real problem with sentencing as it is. He has no facts and figures to show those already convicted of a violent offence have received inadequate sentences. I received a briefing - and I appreciate the briefing from the department – where I asked for some facts and figures on sentencing. I have not seen those facts and figures. It surprises me that, if I do not have the facts and figures, why they were not used in the second reading.
The Attorney-General - who now works in the Supreme Court in his spare time - must know you need hard evidence to win a case. Guess what? He has not produced the hard evidence to show sentences for violent crimes have been inadequate. He has told the uninformed public what they see and hear in the media must be true: violent offenders are getting off scot-free therefore the government, to overcome the lack of adequate sentencing by judges and magistrates, will ensure people go to gaol by introducing mandatory sentencing.
The reality of the situation is far from what the Attorney-General wants to hear because, regardless of the truth, he cannot afford to go back on his political promise no matter how silly and nonsensical it is. Breaking a promise would be too humiliating. The Attorney-General knows we have an appeal system where, if a sentence is regarded as too mild or too harsh, the DPP can appeal. If the independent DPP believes the sentence for a violent crime is too lenient it will appeal. That is the process used for centuries but it is not mentioned in this debate, even though the Attorney-General mentions our judicial tradition quite often during debates in this House. If a judge or magistrate hands down a sentence based on the facts of the case and the requirements of the Sentencing Act, if others do not agree with the decision there can be an appeal, even all the way to the High Court.
Let us look at some facts I have been able to obtain. The Northern Territory Director of Public Prosecutions Annual Report said in 2011-12 there were 2021 new matters before the court and 68 appeals. The year before, 1482 matters were before the court and 64 appeals. In 2009-10, there were 1603 matters before the court and 57 appeals. Around 3.3% to 4.5% of total cases were appealed.
You then break that into cases reflecting Level 5 offences - as in the new bill - to see how many matters were referred to the courts and what percentage of those cases were appealed by the DPP. I expect it to be very low. It shows the Director of Public Prosecutions, the independent arbiter on the adequacy of sentencing, believes sentences are appropriate.
If this legislation is passed - which says sentencing is inadequate and too lenient - the Attorney-General, a lawyer himself, is saying he knows more than the judges and magistrates who give out the sentences, and the DPP, which not only gives advice during a trial on sentencing, but also appeals if the sentence is inadequate or too lenient.
It may be worth reading an extract from the DPP’s 2010-11 Annual Report under ‘Guidelines of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ which states:
It is clear the DPP is doing its job as required ; it is scrutinising the adequacy of sentences. Why are we passing a law which tells the DPP it does not do its job properly? Today, the Attorney-General wants to pass a law on the basis of inadequate sentences are being handed out but brings no evidence to prove his case.
Also, he wants to ensure offenders receive a consistent sentence regardless of knowing any of the facts of the case, meaning they will receive at least three months imprisonment. There is no reasoning why three months has been chosen. Why could it not be one week, one month or six months? There is no definition of genuine gaol time, it is just a slogan. Why should you have a consistent sentence? Surely, each case before the court is dealt with on its merits in the circumstances meaning, logically, the sentence of each case would or could be different, definitely not consistent.
It is also strange more serious crimes highlighted under Schedule 2 of the proposed new bill, such as terrorism, contribution towards an act of terrorism, manslaughter, attempted murder, etcetera, do not have mandatory sentencing. Does that mean the Attorney-General accepts judges are handing out adequate sentences for those violent offences? Why change the system for other violent offences? Does this not show inconsistency in sentencing, the opposite of what the Attorney-General said in his second reading?
In a High Court case, Palling v Corfield, 1970, Justice Barwick – Justice Barwick would fit the definition I gave yesterday regarding learning and wisdom – said:
The other disappointing matter which arises from this bill is the lack of support for the magistrates and judges, the people the Attorney-General, our first lawmaker, would support and trust to carry out justice. By introducing this bill without supporting evidence, he says he does not trust judges and magistrates to pass adequate sentences for violent crimes without checking to see if that is the case. By telling judges they must sentence a person to gaol for three months, he now takes over the role of judge. Without any knowledge of the circumstances of the case, the Attorney-General has decided every case will be the same because they will receive a minimum of three months.
What communication has the Attorney-General had with judges and magistrates over these changes? Could the Attorney-General point me to anyone in that esteemed group who supports this bill? Is there an issue in regard to the separation of powers?
The other reason the Attorney-General wants to introduce this new law is also highlighted in the second reading where he stated:
Does the public really know that is the case? Are they relying on what the government, the Attorney-General or the media tells them, which infers judges and magistrates are too lenient when sentencing offenders and are out of touch? Unfortunately, the Attorney-General is using this lack of knowledge about the facts for his own political purposes. The idea of piggybacking on the opinion of an uninformed public was well used in an election campaign. ‘We need to be tougher on crime’. Now he has to show he is. Why do I say the public are uninformed and the media is partly to blame for the lack of understanding of sentencing?
Let us look at a real case study in Tasmania reported in a paper – Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice. The article was called Public Judgement on Sentencing: Final Results from the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study by Kate Warner, Julia Davis, Maggie Walter, Rebecca Bradfield and Rachel Vermey. There is not enough time to go into all the details of this study but, in a nutshell, public opinion surveys have consistently found 70% to 80% of respondents believe sentences are too lenient, suggesting judges are out of touch with the people.
Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Gleeson, therefore suggested instead of surveying uninformed members of the public it might be more useful if jurors, as more informed members of the public, were asked about sentences in cases they may have deliberated on. The Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study surveyed 698 jurors from 138 trials between September 2007 and October 2009. I am only quoting some paragraphs because it is too long to report tonight.
Under the heading Attitude Towards Judges it said:
The conclusion said:
This document shows a table for jurors’ view on violent crime. These are the informed people. A total of 92% said the sentence was either very appropriate or fairly appropriate, whilst 8% said the sentence was either fairly inappropriate or very inappropriate. This shows if the public is informed and knows the facts they genuinely support the appropriateness of the judge’s sentence, but if the public is not informed they are used by the government. This information is reinforced by the media. The government did not want the public to be informed because it did not suit their political strategy during an election. Now they have won the election they still do not want the public to be informed.
The government has not brought any evidence to this debate. The majority of sentences given by Northern Territory judges and magistrates have been inappropriate. This is a case of keeping people in the dark to suit a political agenda.
The government is not the only one to blame. A paper presented to the Judicial Conference of Australia in 2011 said:
I do not believe we have one here:
Further on the paper said:
Finally, it said:
That applies to the government too and is why this bill is so wrong. It is based on perpetuating an uninformed view of sentencing.
What else is wrong with this bill? There are likely to be many unintended consequences. How will this bill deal with people with mental health problems? It will cause lengthy delays in the process and the discretion of the court will move to the police. There will be a practical impact because of the increasing number of not guilty pleas as people will chance their luck in getting off otherwise they will get three months gaol. How will this reduce costs? There will be more time tied up in courts. Has the government budgeted for it?
Victims of crime will now be scared to testify because if they testify against the partner, that person will get three months and they will be blamed. They will be frightened and will suffer retribution. The offender will not see the judge as the person who has applied the mandatory sentencing but the partner, and there is a likelihood the victim will then not want to give evidence.
I will also mention some points raised by Justice Mildren in his book Big Boss Fella All Same Judge, which is relevant to this bill. On page 90 - I mentioned some of this yesterday - he wrote about mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory in 1933 where it covered murder, three years; rape, four years; carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 12, four years; abortion, three years; setting fire to a church or dwelling, seven years; setting fire to crops, three years; armed robbery, three years; burglary, three years; and the maximum penalty for murder was life and a court had the power to have someone whipped.
On page 128, Justice Mildren said as far as mandatory minimum terms are concerned these were abolished, except in the case of murder by a non-Aborigine, by the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Bill 1939. I raise this because it seems this bill is taking us back to the long distant past.
The other matter relevant to this bill is mentioned by Justice Mildren on pages 309 and 310, where he criticised mandatory minimum sentencing and raised the issue of home detention, something this bill rules out as a form of imprisonment. I read from that book:
This legislation is based on an election promise, on a belief it is what the public wants without surveying the views of the informed public, without any evidence to present sentencing is inadequate, and with no evidence that adding a three-month mandatory sentence will make any difference to the present situation or deter people from committing a violent crime.
This law will mean courts will be clogged up with more people pleading not guilty and the onus will go to police not the courts. Domestic violence victims could suffer retribution, judges and magistrates will lose discretion and, as Justice Mildren said, there is a risk of bribery occurring.
I believe in mandatory punishment not mandatory sentencing. That says people who offend must take responsibility for their actions. Mandatory punishment gives the judiciary latitude to sentence accordingly, but mandatory sentencing takes away the discretion of the judge to apply a punishment that fits the crime - a basic tenet of our judicial system.
Mandatory sentencing is a creature of the ‘tough on crime’ party politics which has been part of the political circus around elections for years. It has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with politics. It is simplistic and does not look at the reasons why violent crimes are committed and what we can do to reduce violent crime before it gets to the court.
Most violent crime is alcohol-related, but the government is more concerned about window dressing, which is what this bill is about, rather than dealing with the underlying problems. The government scrapped the BDR without allowing it time to run long enough to see any positive outcomes. I am disturbed to hear the government is considering scrapping the SMART Court. There seem to be no policies to replace those in the short term, and we seem to be in a vacuum when it comes to real evidence-based approaches to violence, especially alcohol-fuelled violence in our society.
Of course, there is a section in this new bill called ‘exceptional circumstances’. That will probably not apply to most of the people who come before the court because, if you are under the influence of drugs and alcohol, you will not be included in the exceptional circumstances, something I agree with. However, the clause is put in to say there are some means of not coming under the three months mandatory sentencing, but they really would be exceptional circumstances if you were not sentenced to that mandatory sentencing term.
We should be tough on violent offenders. I can see from the evidence the judges and magistrates are giving out sentences that are not appealed which shows they are in touch with what goes on. As someone involved in the judiciary asked me recently, ‘Do you really think a judge or magistrate would not come down harshly on an offender who injured a police officer, a paramedic, a bus driver or someone working at Maccas late at night? Of course they would’. The Attorney-General’s bill shows he does not believe the judiciary, which is a sad thing.
Finally, we have a system of justice the Attorney-General is part of which should be upheld and supported. If we have faith in the judicial system the public will. If we promote the poor reasoning behind this legislation, we encourage the community to lose faith in the judiciary. This bill is a slap in the face to our judiciary and only reinforces the uninformed view that present sentencing by our judges and magistrates is inadequate. I thought the Attorney-General would work to change the uninformed view to one which understood the facts.
Unfortunately, when it comes to a chance to strengthen the community’s support for our judiciary the high ideals of the government and its tough on crime slogan are paramount, and the ideals we should hold as members of parliament in support of our justice system are treated as secondary and our Northern Territory is all the poorer. If we keep going down this path, are we not turning our judges and magistrates into puppets, instead of judges who are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice?
Madam Speaker, this is bad law built on a sandy foundation of political expedience and a deliberate and self-serving promotion of uninformed views on sentencing rather than higher values, good legal principles and the truth. It does not fulfil the sentencing guidelines in the Sentencing Act. It is bad law and I will not support this bill.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Nelson and the shadow Attorney-General representing the Labor values, the member for Nhulunbuy. I am surprised there are not more voices in the House today because this is a monumental occasion where we are returning to draconian law and, as the member for Nelson pointed out very pragmatically, driven purely by politics.
I will share my thoughts and participate in this debate representing the people of the Barkly, and the people of the Northern Territory in a broader context, opposed to this legislation.
When I was elected, five months in I was sworn into my first Cabinet as Minister for Transport and Minister for Corrections. When trying to explain that new role as a minister of the Crown and the responsibilities that went with it to my family, our youngest son said, ‘Well, I get the transport bit dad, but what about corrections?’ I said, ‘Well, son, I have been given the task of delivering something for the Northern Territory society’. He said, ‘Yes, like a bloody big prison’.
That opened a four-year dialogue with that young fellow about the responsibilities. I was able to get a headway in that debate over the four years because the Labor government at the time entered into its new era in corrections. Not only did the Labor Party enter a major reform period of the judicial system and Correctional Services, it backed it with considerable resources. I remember the long arduous debates in the Cabinet room about that.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy, the shadow Attorney-General, for her preparation for this debate, her briefings and the Caucus papers she produced. I also refer to two Attorneys-General with the Labor government, the member for Karama and the previous member for Johnston, who taught me much about the judicial system when we had quite extensive and arduous Caucus debates about challenging policy and policy changes.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Country Liberal Party Caucus room and hear the debate, the challenging of values and morals, the questions about why, and the new Attorney-General of the Northern Territory government being able to explain specifically why this government is going down this path and securing support from CLP Caucus members who have agreed yes, this is a good thing. Minimum mandatory sentencing is a good thing; that will teach them, that will show them.
The member for Nhulunbuy said she is interested to hear from other members. I am also particularly interested to hear further speakers in this debate who can convince Territorians that minimum mandatory sentencing of people for three months is a good way to go.
When the Attorney-General introduced this legislation to the House and recently shared his media release, I tried to communicate this to the people of the Barkly. I put my position and the position of the Labor opposition carefully to the people of the Barkly and ensured we provided a balanced view where we supported the Victims of Crime Assistance Amendment Bill the Attorney-General brought to the House, and the amendments to the Bail Act and the Domestic and Family Violence Act.
However, I told constituents I could not support minimum mandatory sentencing and produced a synopsis for that. I tried to keep it short and to the point so for the Barkly constituents I told the story governments set the agenda in parliament, which means achieving their legislative process for passing new laws. The Mills government media release on the eve of the first parliamentary sittings for 2013 cited a significant focus on law and order with five pieces of legislation to be passed to make the Territory a safer place.
The CLP message is ‘tough on crime’ and appeals to the community to stand by a political party that says it has all the answers to keep us safe.
As a member of the opposition, I represent Labor Party values of sharing a tough-on-crime approach but setting clear boundaries between the political and judicial sphere of influence. In other words, we support legislation which empowers the justice system to administer punishment not politicians.
The CLP government introduced laws to amend the Bail Act and the Domestic and Family Violence Act to enable courts to order drug and alcohol tests. This was supported by the Labor opposition as an effective tool for the judicial system. CLP legislation also raised the victims of crime levy, supported by Labor on condition all increased funds go directly to supporting the recovery of victims, not administration, reflecting the price hike mentality of the Mills government.
However the major point of difference between the two political parties on amendments to the Criminal Code Act is minimum mandatory sentencing, where CLP politicians have interfered with the judicial powers of the courts imposing a minimum three months gaol time for assault. A CLP mandatory minimum sentencing regime removes the discretion of the court to impose options for dealing with the root cause of violent crime in the Northern Territory directly related to drug and alcohol abuse. This new legislation is not supported by legal practitioners, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the NT and Aboriginal justice agencies as it reduces sentencing options available to magistrates and judges, will clog courts, fills prisons and add considerable cost to the taxpayer.
There is no evidence reduced assaults will be achieved by minimum mandatory sentencing as it does not tackle alcohol-related crime and sentences of less than six months. Locking up the alcohol-related offender with hardened criminals does nothing to support rehabilitation.
Territory Labor introduced a sentencing amendment in 2008 which specified particular assaults must record a conviction and order a term of actual imprisonment which may be partly suspended. This retained the independence of the court in cases where rehabilitation would be better achieved with offenders paying dues to the community and not isolated in a prison cell at great expense to the taxpayer.
In opposition, we do not support a law where politicians become judge, jury and executioner, while acknowledging some constituents in the Barkly support this Country Liberal Party position.
The CLP government has the numbers in parliament to pass new laws in addition to scrapping others, like Labor’s Banned Drinker Register and the SMART Court - an alcohol tribunal for dealing with the root cause of violent assaults in our community, alcohol abuse. Approximately 82% of the Northern Territory prison population is Aboriginal, with 60% of violent crime directly related to alcohol abuse. What is the CLP government, and its new Aboriginal members of parliament, hoping to achieve in delivering more prison sentences in the absence of alternative sentencing, education, training and rehabilitation? I have started discourse in Tennant Creek and the Barkly and people are asking questions about this law.
This law will travel through this House today and become the new way of doing business for the government. I want the Attorney-General to explain a few issues because I respect his background and higher education, particularly his experience with the law. As Minister for Correctional Services, there must be much thinking about the end product of this legislation not only in a judicial sense, but also in outcomes for the people who will be directly affected by this legislation.
When I was Minister for Correctional Services there were several elements of the back end of what we see in our Territory community which were continually troubling me and difficult to deal with. I struggled with them and looked for alternatives. The Attorney-General may be able to shed some light on this for me because what I found most challenging in a custodial sentence was the first three months. I found it extremely difficult for that to have any real impact on the offender. I worked tirelessly with Correctional Services to see what could be done to have the impact in the first three months improved. I was able to deliver for one young gentleman on remand, who had his apprenticeship books delivered to the prison so he could continue studying. That was requested by his father and we delivered for him.
I had the library service improved in the area offenders spent around three months in the system. It was where they went through a reception process - detoxed in other words. If they were drug-affected, it was the end so they sought medical attention and went through withdrawal. They dried out if they had alcohol problems - most of them did - and started to familiarise themselves with a life inside.
That must have been pretty scary for offenders not familiar with the system, and I had some interesting experiences in the many prison visits I made over the years. As a visiting minister, images appeared about what it would be like if the clang of the prison door behind me was for real.
Prisoners had to go through a classification. For the short-term sentences - less than six months - they were ready to be turned out and we had done nothing with them except, in many circumstances, seen them terminated from employment, removed from their families, communities, and any benefits they were entitled to in society, and put into an environment where they were not surrounded by intellect and inspirational characters.
That was another big challenge and why there was the big push on alternative sentencing and getting people into environments to empower them, build self-esteem and what the Attorney-General will talk about later today - work environments and so forth. In a three-month period, it was almost impossible to do anything constructive. Minimum mandatory sentencing – ‘make sure we bang them up for at least three months’ - seems very clumsy at the back end of this legislative instrument.
I wonder how the CLP Caucus debated and deconstructed that. I am interested to know how the Attorney-General sold this to the CLP Caucus which, obviously, is interested in this legislation, particularly those members born in regional and remote areas - the ‘new liberals’ in the CLP government – and people representing electorates with a large percentage of Aboriginal people. Go to the figures to see the brutality of 82% of the prison population being Indigenous. It is not only Aboriginal people who are involved in the system, it is also people with low socioeconomic status, low educational levels, and those caught up in the system.
I have faith in the judicial system. I have had contact with the system on a number of occasions for various reasons. I have tried to learn through each experience with the judicial system, and I put my faith in our judicial leaders.
As the member for Nelson pointed out, another aspect of the clumsy nature of this legislation is taking that discerning power away from our judicial leaders. They are important people in our society who make important decisions. Also, the existing system has its checks and balances; there are avenues for appeal.
I am not hearing resounding support from the judicial sector. Having spent some time working with the Department of Justice - also a great learning curve for me and I value those opportunities - I do not believe our public sector would be totally supportive of this legislation. It must be difficult to be in that position, not only if you do not support it philosophically and have issues around the morality, but also when it is being politically driven.
This reminds me of a mate of mine who used to conduct occupational health and safety training with juvenile diversion students I had as a teacher - we called them delinquents. He did some reality training by deconstructing a formal occupational health and safety accredited course and putting it into real speak in real language. One of his great clichs was, ‘Yes, it is all good fun until someone loses an eye’. The guys love that. They loved his anecdotes and his approach to teaching and they learnt much from this guy, particularly when he was wielding chainsaws and we were operating cranes and rolling drums.
However, it is all good fun until somebody loses an eye. This is really good legislation until it happens to my son, or my mate’s daughter, or starts to impact on us directly in the community. We think, ‘Hang on a minute. Perhaps this is not the best way to go with this individual’. Maybe the magistrate will understand the story because they are a learned and respected person, highly professional, and could make the decision that no, this minimum gaol term is not a good thing for this person. They understand there are real support networks around the offender and there is real prospect of total rehabilitation. Unfortunately, in the Northern Territory they will be banged up for three months. This will be rather challenging when we look at what will come forward.
I remember the great community debate around mandatory sentencing for property offences under a CLP government. There was a socially and economically disadvantaged person who made a poor decision to take a towel off a clothesline. Unfortunately, the magistrate used that case to explain the clumsy and inappropriate legislation by saying, ‘I am very sorry but you will have to serve a minimum term of imprisonment’. When we talk about imprisonment, as former Minister for Correctional Services I learnt it can be a life-changing experience and, in many cases, one for the worst.
I commend the new Minister for Correctional Services for the alternative approaches to Correctional Services. I am looking forward to the forthcoming statement because when I first came to the Twelfth Assembly and saw the new government at work I was hearing stories about incarceration, prisons and punishment. However, it is obvious this government understands the balance. Let us hope there will be a good mix of correctional services, particularly alternative sentencing and the principles of the new era we were working on. It will never be mentioned again because I remember this government in opposition had a great deal of trouble with the concept of a new era in corrections.
This legislation is not a good tool in the tool box. This legislation takes power away from the judiciary: an established form of decision-makers in our society. It imposes a political agenda of judge, jury and executioner. I am hoping to hear more from Liberals in this House why this is good legislation because I will take it back to my constituents in the Barkly and put it forward. I will say, ‘This was put up in the House. This did not only come from the Attorney-General, it came from other Liberal members. They spoke about why this is good legislation, that it will work and will set a serious message and tone in the community. It will make us safer, reduce crime, and we will all live happily ever after’.
This is from a media release on 4 February 2013, from the National Indigenous Drug & Alcohol Committee and the Australian National Council on Drugs. It is in regard to the report, An economic analysis for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders; prisons vs residential treatment. It attracted media attention around economics, but let us forget economics and talk about the human outcomes this report delivered to not only the federal government but any interested government. It specifically looked into prisons versus residential treatment, or let us surmise prisons versus alternative treatment or alternative sentencing. The Chair of the National Indigenous Drug & Alcohol Committee, Associate Professor Ted Wilkes said in the release:
Mr Elferink: Member for Barkly, how much longer will you be? I have to attend to something for about three or four minutes. Will you be continuing for that long?
Mr McCARTHY: I will try to keep going, John.
Mr Elferink: It is a matter of growing anxiousness.
Ms Walker: I am sure there will be members on this side.
Mr McCARTHY: There are bound to be about six or seven more.
Mr Elferink: I do not want to be caught short.
Madam SPEAKER: The member has at least another eight minutes.
Mr Elferink: Thank you.
Mr McCARTHY: As a politician, I can talk under cement with a mango in my mouth.
I am pleased my contribution to debate has been captured on the Parliamentary Record, particularly when I started with the story of Joseph McCarthy and ‘Dad, yes, you are building a bloody big prison’, and the four years of work to balance that out.
I was asked to, ‘Rattle on a bit longer because I have to duck out to an important engagement’. We are not allowed to refer to people in and out of the House, but I am pleased this is captured in the Parliamentary Record because when I share this with constituents in the Barkly, and anybody else, it will make interesting reading that the Attorney-General called a point of order and the reason why.
I was quoting from that important report which said enough is enough. With the new era, we were heading down the right pathway. We did not have all the solutions, but it is like the Banned Drinker Register, the SMART Court and the Alcohol Tribunal. If new policy is not given a chance to work, you do not see the true ramifications or the real evidence in the community.
This legislation will be given time to work because it will pass through the House today. We will then see the ramifications and some interesting aspects of the judicial system.
The member for Nhulunbuy touched on an abstract but important issue. If our judicial leaders, our legal fraternity, and the people working in the system to deliver these important outcomes see something is not right, something dodgy has been imposed on them, they will work around it because that is the right thing to do. They are not breaking any law, not doing anything wrong. They will have agreements within the judiciary to, hopefully, still deliver the principles of natural justice where deserved.
That is an interesting comment which made me think about the kids I had been working with and what I have seen of the system. I understand that. It may be the fail-safe we need in clumsy legislation. It may be the only way to balance out the other side of the argument that this legislation will mean clogging the courts, overcrowded prisons, and people taken in for a minimum period denied their existence on the outside and coming out with less opportunity for rehabilitation or to address recidivism and so on. We will wait to see as legislation must be given a chance.
Also, legislation is always up for review. Under the previous government it was always reviewed around the 12-month period. In around 12 months we will be reviewing this. I am sure the Attorney-General will lead that in the interests of Territorians because if we see what other countries and jurisdictions have seen, we will need to change this.
At the moment we are going down a road well-trodden and the Attorney-General feels confident this will, as he said in media releases, deliver community safety; this will make people feel safer and be a better outcome for our community. Well, we will wait to see.
Madam Speaker, I have used up my time and hope I have contributed to the debate. I would like to hear from the Attorney-General how things will change in an offender’s life after three months in the big house.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker I have listened to the opposition speak about people who are being imprisoned, people who are drunk, and point to us as Aboriginal liberals who do not know what we are doing. We do not have a clue because we are now part of the Country Liberal Party. They believe we do not know what is best for our people. They mocked our Chief Minister when he said, ‘Talk to the drunks and tell them not to drink. Don’t get drunk’, or along those lines.
Members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy, we do that every day. I do it every day on the streets of Alice Springs. We do it every day to our family members. Gaol, to our people, is okay because families tell us they are happy their son, nephew, sister or cousin is in gaol for three months because they do not drink, do not get into trouble, are fed three times a day, are with their family members, sleep in language groups and come out of prison much healthier.
For us, the Aboriginal Liberals - maybe I should call you White Labor because I take offence to that. We sit quietly listening to white faces talk about Aboriginal people being imprisoned and how it is so bad for Aboriginal people when I, and the other Aboriginal Country Liberals, try to encourage our family members not to get into trouble.
What did Labor do for our people in the 11 years they were in government? The Banned Drinker Register never helped our people. We will put up with this forever while you members will not have to worry about them because you can go home, close the door and not worry about what is happening outside your front door, your back door, or in the streets.
Some of our families are happy with their young blokes being locked up because they are safe, well fed, and do not drink alcohol. For many of our people gaol is not punishment, at least when they have a short-term sentence.
We all have to work together. If you really care about our people we should all work together as Territorians to help each other find a better pathway for my people, the Aboriginal people - the alcoholics, the reoffenders – and try to point them in the right direction. Labor was in power for 11 years and we saw no Labor members out where I was - especially the then member for Stuart - wanting to help our families’ worst alcoholics who we all saw in the streets of Alice Springs. No rehabilitation centres, no boot camps, nothing was discussed, nothing happened in 11 years to help our people get over this problem which will never go away.
We can talk and talk about how it will not change, how our Attorney-General does not know what he is talking about. We can talk about the Yolngu, Warlpiri, Tiwi and the Binninj. We, as Aboriginal people, know what we have to do. We do not need other people talking about what is best for our people. If you cared about our people you would have done something about it. All those years and we are still talking about the same problems Labor had been dealing with for 11 years. Now this government is trying to do its best to help our people - the alcoholics and the reoffenders.
Our gaols are filling up because our people get themselves into trouble. They reoffend. Are you going to stop these people reoffending? Will you be there when these people hit their wives while in a state of intoxication? Are you there every night to say to them, ‘Treat your family with care’? We do that every day. We are on the phone to our family who tell us, ‘Your nephew will go to court. We need you to support him’. We say to these young people, ‘Don’t get into trouble’.
Like the member for Barkly said, I am learning; I will be learning. By the time I have learnt what it all means, hopefully, I will be saying at least I have done something for one person instead of protecting them and saying, ‘Poor bugger blackfella. Why are you locking him up? No, just let him lie there under that tree. Let him be trodden on. Don’t touch him, poor bugger blackfella’.
This has been going on for so long yet the people we are trying to protect are doing the same thing they do every day. For the last 11 years, I have not seen Labor do anything to save these people. They are still doing the same thing they do every day. I believe it is the same in Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin. If you really care about these people, like our Chief Minister said, ‘Talk to them and point them in the right direction’. Do not have a go at our Chief Minister because he said that. He is passionate because he wants to do something for our people.
We do not want to see them locked up. Our gaols are full of Aboriginal people but they do it to themselves. No one is forcing them; they are doing it to themselves. The best way to go about it is, instead of throwing slogans at each other or pointing the finger at each other across the floor, if you really care about these people why not do something about it? Why not all do something about it and not pretend, ‘We know more than you’? We live this lifestyle; we have to put up with it.
The member for Barkly spoke about his family in Tennant Creek. I have family in Tennant Creek as well who need support. We all need to help our people move forward. Instead of saying, ‘I know better than you; I know what is best for Nhulunbuy, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek’ - these are Aboriginal people we are talking about. You do not have the faintest idea what everybody else is saying about them.
Madam Speaker, We can talk about them, say we care about them, and read statistics Boffa may have put together, but it has still not helped our people. As I said before, our families want our young people to be locked up, want our families to be locked up because they are safe in there.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, there is an angle I am sure members did not consider which carries weight. Also, in relation to the fixation the Labor Party has with Indigenousness in this debate, for nearly every Indigenous offender who will be subject to this legislation there is an Indigenous victim who deserves protection like any other victim of crime.
I hope I do not have to keep referring to people by race because this is not targeted at race. This is targeted at people – victims and offenders - and that is the classification I am interested in.
I would like to read something from the previous Chief Minister:
I also recall the members for Nhulunbuy and Barkly were members of Caucus at the time. Where was their strident opposition to the mandatory sentencing regime proposed by the Chief Minister? Where was their protection of the courts saying it was a challenge to the integrity of the courts? Where were their howls of opposition and defence of the downtrodden when the Chief Minister was making those observations? They were resplendent in their silence.
I table a similar media release from Dr Chris Burns in which he said the opposition’s - that was us - credibility was in tatters because the CLP Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, had lost all credibility on crime after being caught out misleading Territorians about sentencing. Attorney-General, Dr Chris Burns said:
I wonder what Dr Chris Burns has to say about the contribution from the two members opposite when you contrast it with the last government of the Northern Territory.
There was also a quote at the bottom which Dr Burns relied on from Glen Dooley of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency which said:
It is already in the legislation so he is off the mark there. Clearly, I, as Attorney-General, am getting it wrong. I table that media release with a copy of section 78BA of the Sentencing Act as in force at 11 March 2008.
I continue:
Starting to get a theme, are we? I am not going to quote the whole thing. Basically, the former government was going to be tough on crime and was all about mandatory sentencing. I did not see in the debate strident opposition from the member for Barkly. Let us talk about an Aboriginal bush member, as the member for Barkly likes to refer to him …
Mr Giles: Not good enough to be a proper member, just an ...
Mr ELFERINK: No, just an Aboriginal one. This Aboriginal female Labor member, Ms McCarthy, said:
Mr McCarthy: Is that what happened with the CLP, John? Everybody toeing the party line?
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. Yes, it is all about toeing the party line. Perhaps what people agree with, member for Barkly, are the sentiments of the media releases I read out. Perhaps people believe what Ms McCarthy had to say in that debate. Maybe people on this side of the House believe this is appropriate and right legislation. We attempted to amend that legislation because we knew that whilst the rhetoric was there the substance was not. Of course, what we, and the former shadow Attorney-General Ms Carney pointed out - somebody the Labor government had such respect for it gave her a job after she left politics - was a capacity in that legislation for the sentence to gaol - which is in the media releases - to be nothing more than a sentence to the rising of the court.
In our opinion, it did not go far enough. What we are doing today is fulfilling the Labor government’s promise to ensure, if people are convicted of violent crime, they will do time. The rhetoric about the independence of the courts was completely abandoned by the members opposite who sit there in silence. They were happy to sign up to this; it is all about toeing the party line. The independence of the court was subordinate to the party line.
Let us put a few furphies to bed. Let us talk about the independence of the courts. They are not completely independent of this House nor should they be. It is part of the natural tension in the separation of powers. If you were to make the courts completely independent - adjudicate completely independently over all offences created by this House - there would be no mandatory loss of driver’s licence at the point you were picked up for drink-driving. In fact, if you were picked up for speeding you would have to make an application for the court to hear the matter. That is clearly a patently absurd idea, which is why we do this by way of regulation and impose mandatory sentences. It is a mandatory speeding fine, a mandatory loss of licence, a mandatory minimum fine for an exceed 0.05 offence.
That is the principle about intruding on the power of the courts. The former government gave us mandatory sentencing for murder. It had no problem intruding on the power of the courts. You issued media release after media release saying you were going to intrude on the power of the courts, but what they are concerned about is the outcome this legislation will propose; if violent offenders commit violent crimes they will do time as was promised by the former Labor government under the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson.
The other thing which constantly amazes me - I will return to this theme - is the members opposite think Aboriginal people who commit violent crimes are victims. They are happy to make that assumption because it is all about nurturing and caring for them and all those types of things.
What about the real victims? What about the victims who have been bashed by these people? What do we do for them? Well, not a great deal. There is a consistent belief we have completely removed all capacity of the courts to deal with these types of offences. No, we are mindful of it so we have established a structure in which exceptional circumstances can be considered by the court doing the sentencing. This means matters like the opinion of the spouse who has brought a criminal action against his or her spouse, as the case may be, may make an application to the court. I draw honourable members attention to clause 78DI(3)(a) which deals with this component of exceptional circumstances:
If a victim says to a court, ‘I don’t want to see this person do the time for the crime they have committed against me’, we have specifically identified that. We have, ‘Not only can you consider whatever you like about what is exceptional’ - a broad capacity for a court – ‘moreover, we are making it absolutely clear the victim’s wishes can be considered for the purposes of the exceptional circumstances’.
We considered that and attended to it. In essence, we are saying to the court, ‘We expect you to send people to gaol for their misdeeds and conducts’. We do this with much legislation across all types of offences. ‘We also expect you to take into consideration those circumstances which are so exceptional this law should not apply’. We have said to the courts, ‘Whilst we expect you to put them in gaol and put legislative pressure on you, we still allow you an element of discretion in the right circumstances. The quality of mercy, we understand, is not strained’.
Members opposite have been so precious all the way through this. They are repositioning themselves and not much more. They were happy to support this. It is all about toeing the party line, but they had no problem with any of this at a philosophical level. It was all perfectly fine four years ago. All I have heard from the members opposite in relation to this has fallen on a set of cynical ears - mine.
The cost of people going through the prison system is also an issue, I accept that. If you run that argument backwards - recently attempted by a national report - that it is cheaper to keep all prisoners out of gaol and put them into different institutions, you could understand that. However, gaols do not make money. Gaols are an expensive institution but are there because people commit crimes and we put people in gaol, which is why they cost money. If you run the argument it is all too expensive, do not bother, let us make it really cheap, let us close the gaol doors completely, let everybody go, - Bradley John Murdoch, Anthony Scotti, Andrew Albury - let them all go. That would be patently absurd as well, so there has to be a balance.
The point of balance, we on this side of the House believe, can accommodate, from a cost point of view, people who will go to gaol as a result of this legislation: people who have committed violent offences.
Why is there an argument about cost? Of course it costs to gaol people. Members opposite, in government, also had to gaol people. In fact, they had to build a bigger gaol. Unfortunately, because of the deal with the member for Nelson, we had confusion around where to build the gaol. It is now 12 months later and there is pressure on the old gaol system. The gaol is under pressure and I have made no secret of that; I have spoken about it publicly. The gaol is under pressure because of the former minister and his government’s fundamental mismanagement of the construction of the new gaol, which is not entirely necessary in the structure it currently takes. We have to accept this gaol because we have been given it by the former government.
I pick up on comments made by the member for Nelson, who put up a good fight. There is much in what he had to say. He spoke about mental health problems of people affected by the system. If a person is so mentally unwell they would commit or engage in conduct that, but for their mental debility, would qualify as an offence, they would not be convicted for that offence because they were not criminally responsible. In the absence of a conviction you would not take the logical steps into the process of sentencing.
I return to this issue. Perhaps a court, in whatever circumstances it finds itself, believes a person with a mental issue not of such a nature as to absolve them of criminal responsibility convicts them of a criminal offence, this person does not automatically have to go to gaol because we have constructed the exceptional circumstances clause in this bill. If that person successfully argues their mental impairment is of such a nature as to render them an exceptional circumstance, the court can act accordingly.
If the mental impairment is such that it does not constitute an exceptional circumstance, they will be held answerable for their crime in the sense they will be punished by a mandatory sentence should they commit a Level 5, Level 4 or, in some circumstances, a Level 3 offence. So they should because these people have committed violent crimes. I agree with the former Chief Minister Paul Henderson, former minister Ms McCarthy, and Dr Chris Burns on this issue; these people should do gaol time. We are of one mind. We were in the Eleventh Assembly, but it appears the mind is a bit more fractious in the Twelfth.
I have heard nothing today, and have listened carefully to the point where a call of nature meant I had to slip out of the room. That is all it was, I was not scurrying off to a meeting; it was a natural function. I did not want to get caught out with you sitting down while I was out of the room…
Mr McCarthy: An even more enlightening Parliamentary Record, John. Thank you for that.
Mr ELFERINK: I thought I would let you know because ...
Mr McCarthy: That is on the public record, brother.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I know. I had the courtesy to let you know I was going to be out of the room for two seconds and wanted to be back. As you know, there is a speaker in the gentlemen’s so what is going on in the House is audible. I did not miss a minute of the debate.
There is also the reference that mandatory sentencing does not work. That is an interesting comment because you throw it out as ‘mandatory sentencing does not work’. What are you trying to achieve? If you are trying to put people in gaol for committing serious offences …
Ms Walker: It does not reduce crime - recidivism.
Mr ELFERINK: …it works. The person has committed the offence and gone to gaol. That works! What they are alluding to, of course, is a number of other aspects of this which, in relation to recidivism - I heard the shadow Attorney-General call out across the room, ‘Oh it doesn’t help recidivism’. Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not. However, it works in the sense that it puts violent offenders in gaol. I am keeping the Labor Party policy close to my heart and advancing it consistent with all the public statements of the former Labor government to protect the innocent of our community and am proud to do so. In fact, I am improving on it and am sure both Dr Chris Burns and Paul Henderson, consistent with their public statements, would say, ‘Yes, consistent with what we have said the Country Liberals are advancing Labor policy to the next logical step’.
The short memory of the members opposite is the problem. ‘I am proud to be a Labor Party speaker in this House. I am proud to be a member of the Labor Party supporting its policy and driving it to a better place so we have a better outcome as a Labor government in the Northern Territory’. I have listened to former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson. I have listened to ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Attorney-General well knows our legislation allowed for the court to suspend the sentence partly, including the rising of the court, and that is a distinct difference. You are misleading this House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have the call, Attorney-General.
Mr ELFERINK: I am proudly being consistent with all the public statements of the former Labor government and all the public enunciations on how tough it is on crime. ‘I am proud to be a member of the Labor Party today’. That is what I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This is an interesting repositioning of the Labor Party. Under the new Opposition Leader there is a huge step to the left. Under the next Labor government there will be many ‘don’t turn right’ signs erected around town for subliminal improvement on the chances of the left. We are happily drifting left because they do not want to cuddle up to the former policies of the Henderson government - they do not want to hear what Ms McCarthy had to say. There was not a single utterance about the rising of the court in any of the public announcements of the Labor Party opposite. I have held true, and this parliament is holding true, to the public pronouncements made by the former government.
I note we have to go into committee stage because two new offences are to be added to Schedule 2. The member for Nelson pointed out during a briefing that murder was absent. He is quite right and we are about to fix that. In the process, we have also added section 155A: assault, obstruction etcetera of persons providing rescue, medical treatment or other aid if the offender assaulted the other person. We will be adding those two to the list and look forward to the committee stage. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 5.1 standing in my name to insert section 155A (if the offender assaulted the other person),
Ms WALKER: Bear with me, Attorney-General, I asked you a couple of days ago if amendments were forthcoming.
Mr ELFERINK: I sent you a letter. I put it on your desk.
Ms WALKER: Yes, that was yesterday. I asked you two days ago. You did not response to my e-mail and the letter was dated two days ago. Given the amount of business before the House, I have not looked at this thoroughly. I know you will want to have a go at me. I am not across these clauses and how they work within the body of the act and the changes. I am trying to understand with this clause, if it had not been picked up, there would have been a gaol term for harassing, is that correct?
Mr ELFERINK: Bear with me while I re-read the section.
Ms WALKER: It is being amended for assault.
Mr ELFERINK: We are talking about a Level 5 offence in that clause. I take you to the bill, which is clause 78CA(1)(b) Offence levels, after the words ‘against section’ are serious harm assaults. The addition of clause 155A follows on from the serious harm assault. That is the insertion we are making.
Ms WALKER: That is a fairly serious oversight. How could you get that so wrong?
Mr ELFERINK: It is because the very astute member for Nelson picked up ‘murder’. When that was discovered, a very astute officer from the department looked at it. The suggestion was we include it because it is Good Samaritan legislation - people who assist others - and it was determined it would be appropriate to add it.
Ms WALKER: Thank you for that explanation, and well done to the member for Nelson for picking that up. I recall his former research officer was also very good at picking errors.
Mr Wood: She taught me.
Mr ELFERINK: He did not pick it up; he picked up murder, which was also well done.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 5.2 standing in my name regarding proposed Schedule 2 insert (in numerical order) section 155A assault, obstruction etcetera of persons providing rescue, medical treatment or other aid if the offender assaulted the person; and also section 156 Murder.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, can I ask a general question on Schedule 2 or do you need to get this through …
Mr ELFERINK: No, we can go to Schedule 2.
Mr WOOD: Are there a number of sections which do not have mandatory sentencing terms attached to them?
Mr ELFERINK: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is where there are previous convictions they may attract the operation of the offences in the schedule.
Mr WOOD: Is the government satisfied with the sentencing the judiciary has applied to those sections that do not have mandatory sentencing? They are violent offences.
Mr ELFERINK: Those offences generally attract much greater sentences than a minimum of three months. Nothing says the sentence will be three months. It says the sentence will be a minimum of three months and they can go out to their natural maximums. As Attorney-General, I have to be cautious because I am mindful of my role and duty. You are inviting me to criticise the courts and I will not do that. I have, on a number of occasions, as is my duty as Attorney-General, defended the courts since becoming Attorney-General and will continue to do so. You will not find me pillorying the courts, which is, essentially, what you are inviting me to do. However, consistent with Labor Party pronouncements of the past and our pronouncements now, we are meeting public expectation.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, you would have heard my belief there is an informed public and an uninformed public and I provided evidence for that. I am not trying to get you to pillory the judiciary. If you are not applying a minimum sentence to a more serious offence, why are you applying it to a less serious offence? If you say the sentences are not satisfactory in relation to Level 5 and Level 4 classifications, why not say they are not satisfactory for attempts to murder or threats to kill? Is the existing sentencing regime doing its job? I have not seen that evidence and I have asked for it. I do not want to see duplicated legislation. If our present legislation is working and people are being sentenced, why are we bringing this forward?
Mr ELFERINK: You have made your point well and it was understood during the earlier debate. The more serious offences - attempt to murder - if a person is convicted one would expect the courts to look at a penalty of greater than three months. It is the lower-level offences where we talk about public expectation, and that expectation is different to the legal profession’s expectation, there is no doubt about that. However, I do not automatically subscribe to your assertion - nor did the former Labor government - that the public expectation is subordinate to the legal fraternity’s. We not only serve the legal fraternity of the Northern Territory, we also serve the public.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, Attorney-General. Just as we have debated today who is right and who is wrong regarding debt, some people on your side would say we need to inform the public more so they can make a better judgment of which side is right. Before you base your changes to this law on so-called public expectation of what should happen, it should be changed to informed public expectation otherwise we are reinforcing people’s concepts based on false information. That seems a very poor basis for bringing in laws. Through history, people have been led by governments giving false impressions that have gained much support. Various leaders are able to say things the public latches onto and believes must be right. They do it for their own end. That does not mean it is right. That is my problem with this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand what you are saying. We, as a democracy, should not second guess the public particularly when it comes to electing us. However, there is an argument in relation to the public’s quality of understanding in matters of sentencing and I listened carefully to what you said. You made your case and I understand what you said. I suspect pursuing this will not advance the committee stages of this bill one way or another.
Mr WOOD: I understand.
Ms WALKER: Attorney-General, this is a more general question around the minimum sentence of three months. Why it is three months and not two months?
Mr ELFERINK: There is certain arbitrariness to it. If you look at sentencing - even a court, when it goes through a sentencing process - why does a murderer get 20 years instead of being executed? Why does a murderer not get five years? Why does a murderer not cop a substantial fine if he can afford to pay $2m in damages to the family? Punishment is probably one of the hardest things to measure for a court or parliament. We do it all the time, but it is very hard because there are so many competing interests.
One of the great joys about contract law or tort law is you can match the penalty or damages to the loss suffered. If somebody drops a 20 tonne weight on my new car worth $40 000, a court can say, ‘The loss was this much; we are going to restore that person to their original position’, which was $40 0000. Because of the negligent action of the person who dropped the 20 tonne weight, that person now owes the owner $40 000. That is easy because it is a causal link between cause and effect.
If you read punishment decisions you will see they are really hard. They are arbitrary in nature because it depends where you come from. If you come from a utilitarian philosophy of punishment you will come to a different result than if you go to the lex talionis, a retributive approach to punishment.
Why three months? Because with the best judgment of this side of this House, that was best with the limited capacity available to us - or anybody else, such a court - which would meet public expectation. However, nothing prevents the court, should it be presented with a set of circumstances where it would be inclined to impose a more serious penalty than three months, from doing so. If there is a Level 5 offence which the court takes a very grim view of, it can penalise as much as 14 years – off the top of my head. There is a level of arbitrariness to it, but that is the explanation.
Ms WALKER: I want to talk about proportionality as a principle of sentencing because this is where there appears to be a significant shift. There are exceptional circumstances but they seem to have been removed. It may be easier to understand these things through a hypothetical or example. About this time a year ago there was a very high profile case before the courts where the offender was charged with assault - the former Mayor of Palmerston. He was sentenced to three-and-a-half months in prison, which was suspended but for the 10 days he was required to serve. Obviously, the magistrate hearing that case made that decision based on a number of factors. Would I be right in assuming if that case were to be heard under this legislation there would be no ifs or buts, it would be three months?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, if the victim suffers physical harm as a result of the offence and it is not a Level 5 offence. However, that applies to sections 188A and 189A so it is not a level 4 offence and you go to the next one.
If the offence is against section 188 of the Criminal Code Act, which is an aggravated assault, which the Mayor of Palmerston was convicted of because he injured the person - it was bodily harm. It was, therefore, an indictable offence heard in the lower courts. It attracted what would now be a Level 3 offence under this legislation because of the operation of clause (3)(a). However, at that point, because he had no prior conviction, it would have been more reflective of the current operation of section 78BA introduced by the Henderson government. Unless he had a prior conviction under the operation of this bill, the court may have opposed that sentence because of the nature of the harm. The sentence handed down by the court could have been also handed down under this legislation.
If that person was at work - a Level 4 offence - and the former Mayor of Palmerston struck that person as a result of their work, in accordance with what I said yesterday, the mayor would have served three months.
A suspended sentence is a gaol sentence; he got three months. It is considered to be one step down from actual gaol time: the second step down. The suspension after 10 days is a determination of the court - an act of mercy - but he was given three months and that was appropriate for the court at the time.
Ms WALKER: I am trying to find the point of difference where our legislation allowed for the court to suspend a sentence partly and, if it were a first offence, it would be up to the court to determine the length of time to be served in gaol. There was capacity through the rising of the court.
I go back to the principle of proportionality. These are the words of Justice Southwood around recognising proportionality to the gravity of the crime to be considered in the light of its objective circumstances. One offence versus another in relation to circumstances, injury and all those things seems to be removed under this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: Removed, not completely, but substantially. Also, if the former Mayor of Palmerston had a prior conviction he would have served three months under the operation of a Level 3 offence. That is how it was intended to work. He was sentenced to three months by the court and the only difference between that and this was he would have served three months.
Yes, it removes, to a degree, some of the considerations of proportionality to the component of the sentence which is covered by the operation of this legislative instrument. I remind you, proportionality is attracted, to a degree, in this legislative instrument by virtue of the operation of clause 78DI - exceptional circumstances - where a certain amount of proportionality can be introduced in the right circumstances. We have left it in the hands of the courts to exercise discretion where the proportionality is of such a nature that it attracts exceptional circumstances.
Ms WALKER: Attorney-General, it is acknowledged on this side Labor’s involvement in developing legislation with components of mandatory sentencing. You mentioned mandatory sentencing for murder. The Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory would tell any government, irrespective of political persuasion, it is very much against mandatory sentencing for the reasons I outlined during debate.
Russell Goldflam put to you that if it is not broke do not fix it. Does the Criminal Lawyers Association of Northern Territory have it wrong and you have it right?
Mr ELFERINK: It is a matter of opinion. We do not agree with them. We went to the people of the Northern Territory at the last election saying, ‘We believe this’. We did not hide this; it was not some furtive thing we had tucked away in a small bag. If we are to accept the adjudication of the people of the Northern Territory, as we must - I do not question it, it is something we must do, our whole system is predicated on that assumption - the only thing I can say is the people of the Northern Territory also do not agree with Mr Goldflam.
I have had this conversation with Mr Goldflam and I understand he is strident and passionate about it. We maintain a cordial relationship and agree to disagree on certain things.
Mr WOOD: People do not want their power prices to go up but you put them up.
Mr ELFERINK: We can have that conversation at another time.
Mr WOOD: In relation to the sentencing guidelines, section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act states:
It seems ‘just’ is a very important word. If a magistrate or judge believes this change to the law is not just, has the magistrate or judge the right to throw the case before the court out based on that first principle?
Mr ELFERINK: There are two responses to that. First is the general is subordinate to the specific. There is a Latin maxim for it but I cannot tell you it off the top of my head. Basically, it says if there is a specific thing in a legislative item which directs a court to do a certain thing, and there is a competing but general proposition in another part of the bill, the general rule of thumb - with exceptions I imagine, I would have to go to case law for that - is the specific is, obviously, superior to the general.
Perhaps I can explain the rationale behind that. When a court picks up a bill it is picking up a set of instructions from the people of the Northern Territory as expressed through the lawfully elected parliament. It is saying, ‘We must subordinate ourselves to the laws provided by the people of the Northern Territory’. I am reading the set of general principles which say punish the offender in a way to be just in all the circumstances. Okay, I understand those principles. It also talks about damage, injury, loss caused and the nature of offenders. You have a series of general principles.
Then, as the judge, I read through this set of instructions and reach the point where it states, specifically, in the case where it applies to Level 5, Level 4 or Level 3 offences, there is a specific instruction to me. Surely, the people who wrote this instruction to me in the parliament were trying to say something very specific. ‘Whilst we have a set of general principles, we understand the parliament has turned our attention directly to these specifics’. That is how it generally operates.
Mr WOOD: One matter I raised - we are being philosophical here - is one principle put to me many times is the punishment must fit the crime. Is that philosophical principle not in the sentencing guidelines? I was speaking to a lawyer today who opposes mandatory sentencing. He said the basic principle is the punishment should fit the crime. Is that principle in law and, if so, how does it fit this particular case?
Mr ELFERINK: The temptation is to launch into a dissertation on crime and punishment. I could take you down and talk about Michel Foucault. I could talk about the intent of prisons. Perhaps we could talk about utilitarianism as described by Jeremy Bentham. Perhaps, retributive policy, which was Hegel. It is too tempting but I will not go there. I will save you the pain.
Unless you can establish exceptional circumstances, these punishments fit the crime.
Mr WOOD: They can never fit the crime if you do not know what the crime is. If you are to take in all circumstances in relation to a crime, you do not know those circumstances before you apply the penalty.
Mr ELFERINK: Hence the exceptional circumstances clause.
Mr WOOD: You would not need an exceptional circumstances clause if you used the basic principle that the judge or magistrate would make the decision based on all circumstances before the court.
Mr ELFERINK: I am guided by the people of the Northern Territory and the former Labor government on this issue. I have been elected on a promise to introduce this legislation. Do I subordinate myself to the judges or do I subordinate myself to the people?
Mr WOOD: We also have a duty to lead and listen. This law is based on an uninformed public point of view. It is our duty, as members of this parliament through the office we hold, to inform the public. When I tried to do that today, and in the last week by asking for evidence of sentencing, I was unable to obtain that evidence. I also rang the DPP and spoke to the sheriff. He put me on to somebody in relation to appeals. I was told I had to go through protocol; I could not get any evidence there. I find this difficult without the evidence.
Mr ELFERINK: I have checked into that. My advice is the evidence you asked for is highly detailed and taking time to put together. However, this is a House of debate and we do not agree with you. That information will come to you possibly tomorrow.
Mr WOOD: Can we hold off the vote?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, well ….
Ms WALKER: Attorney-General, I am unsure if you share the view I put on behalf of the opposition. We will see an increase in not guilty pleas, an increased pressure on police resources, the DPP office and longer cases in court. Have you taken resourcing into account? How will the system deal with these increased demands?
Mr ELFERINK: There is a presumption of an increase. Let us accept that presumption is correct, although I do not automatically accept it because I believe if the public is informed this may have a deterrent quality. However, I have sought advice and am comfortable we are sufficiently well-resourced to deal with the matters coming before the courts.
It is every person’s right, if they believe they have not committed the offence, to ask the Crown to prove its case. The Crown must do so beyond reasonable doubt. If that person has a defence under the operation of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act, they should exercise that right and justice will prevail. If they are convicted then the operation of this act will commence, specifically in criminal matters.
Ms WALKER: Attorney-General, I also put up on behalf of the opposition the proposition this has the potential to see an increase in crime whereby, for reasons I outlined, police may seek a lesser offence, a summary offence type change such that will not meet what it has intended to do. Have you sought advice in this area and have you received assurances this would not be the case?
Mr ELFERINK: I expect the police to do their job. If the police receive a complaint of a serious assault I expect them to investigate it. It there is a prima facie case then I expect them to do their duty diligently. If you have any evidence the police are not going to do that I am interested to hear it.
If a person complains to a police officer that they have been the victim of a criminal act the police are duty bound to investigate it until the point is reached where they either have prima facie evidence of an offence being committed or, alternatively, insufficient evidence to proceed. To suggest police would be avoiding their duty to the citizens of the Northern Territory for the sake of the paper work - if that were true, I would be disappointed with those police
Ms WALKER: No, I was not suggesting they would be avoiding their duties. There is definitely a feeling from conversations I have had and advice received that could be an unintended consequence of this legislation. That is where I was coming from.
I wanted to ask several things on behalf of NAAJA. I assume you responded to the concerns they raised with you. NAAJA requested you consider amending the bill to provide for particular rather than exceptional circumstances. Why did you decide not to make that amendment?
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps because it is easier. You talk about fettering the courts – ‘particular’ is constrictive by its description - something is particularly this or particularly that. I draw your attention to clause 78DI(3)(b):
That is broad enough for the courts to manage their way through exceptional circumstances.
Mr WOOD: Did you write to magistrates and judges asking their opinion of the bill? Not about its workings, did they agree with the philosophy behind the bill?
Mr ELFERINK: No, I did not write to them. I may have done, but I also spoke to them. I had a meeting with all magistrates at the Local Court about a number of issues and, if memory serves me, this came up. Of course they do not like it. Many people in the legal fraternity do not like it and see it as an intrusion. That has been made clear. I have heard quotes from them and have listened to them. The exceptional circumstances clause reflects some of their concerns.
I also went to the people of the Northern Territory with this policy and now find myself Attorney-General. We find ourselves in government. I understand what you are saying about the great ignorant masses …
Mr WOOD: I did not say that. I was ...
Mr ELFERINK: I understand what you are saying about the ill-informed. I do not presume to second guess the public in that fashion. You do, and that is your business. The question is: do I subordinate myself to the opinion of the judges or the people of the Northern Territory? I choose the latter.
Mr WOOD: You said something which alarmed me. Why did you say they thought this was an intrusion? Why did they not consider it part of the judicial system we have in Australia where they give sentences based on punishment fits the crime?
Mr ELFERINK: All legislation is an intrusion. Go back to the common law system. Put all legislation aside before parliament started operating. Judges made the law. They applied the law as they saw fit in accordance with what other judges said. Every legislative instrument is an intrusion whether it is copyright legislation, tort law - we intrude into contract law with legislative instruments. This is an intrusion, the sex offenders bill is an intrusion, company act legislation is an intrusion. The question is to what degree? We are intruding to a further degree and they see that as a restraint on their liberty.
Our system of governance is such that the parliament is allowed to intrude into the judiciary in the sense it provides legislative instruments. The judiciary, whilst sometimes not happy about this intrusion, subordinates itself to the parliament’s will, quite rightly, and that is how our system works. Yes, they did not want the intrusion but we intrude regularly. Every time we pass a bill in this House we intrude.
Ms WALKER: My understanding is the intrusion is into that blurring of the separation of powers and a further intrusion of one arm - being the government - into that area of the judiciary. The separation of powers is where the intrusion is and the blurring of boundaries.
I have one last question, Attorney-General, which was raised by NAAJA about limiting the relevant prior convictions this bill captures. Thankfully, this bill for mandatory sentencing does not capture youth. I must seek a briefing from your office around boot camps. Obviously, it is progressing.
Why is it, given these young people - immature, yes - are responsible for their actions but, given their immaturity, make a mistake - why do they have to carry that conviction with them into adulthood? That youth conviction will count as a prior offence? NAAJA had asked you to exclude that but you have chosen not to.
Mr ELFERINK: I could ask the same question of the former government, because it introduced that principle. Section 78BA, the other mandatory sentencing I referred to earlier, had exactly the same principle. It continues the former government’s policy.
It is not a breach of the separation of powers. If I, as a member ...
Ms Walker: Not according to you.
Mr ELFERINK: No, if I ...
Ms Walker: Some of the judiciary feel different.
Mr ELFERINK: The separation of powers manifests in different ways. There is the Westminster system, which does not have a constitutional instrument to drive it. It was not long before there was an accepted separation between the executive, - the Crown - the parliament, and the judiciary as the Westminster system started to develop over history. The signing of the Magna Carta would be a starting point to modern time.
That separation of powers came to its most sharp relief in the English Civil War of the mid-1600s when the Crown was executed for treason against the people. The courts have had an adjudicatory role all the way through this development. It finds a different manifestation when the philosopher, Montague, looked at the English system and came up with a cleaner system of separation adopted by the United States. We have two different systems.
The system of separation of powers in the United States is the head of the executive has full control over the executive arm of government and is not required to sit in the parliament - Congress. They have a separate judiciary. However, to run the argument a legislative instrument intrudes into the separation of powers is not describing it correctly. In Australia we capture, through our constitutional instrument, the separation of powers. In the Australian Constitution the courts are described under Chapter 3. I refer you to the discussion on the separation of powers in the boilermakers’ case.
Mr WOOD: I have a question on home detention. In his book, Justice Mildren said he believes mandatory sentencing is a good option. I have always been under the impression it is a fairly difficult option because of the temptation for people to leave their premises. Why has it been taken out considering it would save money by not keeping someone in prison and would enable a breadwinner to put food on the family’s table? It seems to be a backwards step removing home detention as a form of imprisonment.
Mr ELFERINK: I refer you to our earlier discussion in relation to opinions and public expectations.
Mr WOOD: What evidence do you have from the public they do not accept home detention as a form of imprisonment?
Mr ELFERINK: I was elected on this policy.
Mr WOOD: It is not a matter of informing or leading, it is what will get you into parliament - the basis of home detention not being a serious enough form of imprisonment?
Mr ELFERINK: We went to the public with policy prior to the election. They elected us.
Ms WALKER: Attorney-General, given the to and fro the member for Katherine and I had last night over very poor communications around power charges and the fact power tariffs were going up, I still contest he is wrong. There has been incredibly poor lack of communication into our remote Indigenous communities where non-Indigenous people live as well. That is how I find out what is often going on, and the confusion from my non-Indigenous constituents who speak up on behalf of their next-door neighbours.
Given that has been pretty disastrous, along with the concerns of other members, what is the process to communicate to members in the bush who do not read the Northern Territory News or have access to mainstream media? What is the process to communicate this new mandatory sentencing regime and alert people to what is coming? Surely, that would be the right thing to do as a deterrent itself, allow people to know there are new laws coming into place?
Mr ELFERINK: We do what we can, as a government and as an opposition. During the election campaign we communicated this as best we could. I remember seeing some polling from about five to six years ago where we polled name recognition of Clare Martin in one of our towns in the Northern Territory. It came back with about a 95% recognition rate. I was struck that 5% of the population had never heard of Clare Martin, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory at the time.
You do what you can but, at the end of the day, short of putting 5 m by 10 m billboards with flashing lights in every community around the Northern Territory, and doorknocking and communicating in language personally with every individual, some people will not get the message. It is not unreasonable to expect the public to inform itself. That is why we have newspapers, television and those things. We go into broadcasts. There are limitations to what government can do in communicating matters. We have communicated, through every normal and reasonable medium, that these legislative changes are in the pipeline. I have been on television, on radio and in the newspaper talking about this as well as making the plans to go down this path abundantly clear to the public during the election campaign. I do not believe we could have been clearer.
I am not going to second guess the community in the sense of what they did or did not know. I will presume they were as informed as they needed to be when they elected us and we will endeavour to communicate, within reason, the nature and breadth of this policy. We have been doing it, and we will continue to do it, within reasonable means.
Ms WALKER: When you mention mainstream media, I am concerned the Darwin-centric view of mainstream media is the NT News and the ABC. Attorney-General, this message needs to be taken to radio stations which broadcast in language. For instance, Yolngu Radio Service, operated by Aboriginal Resource Development Services, has a very large catchment area across Arnhem Land. I do not know the equivalent of ARDS Yolngu Radio in other parts of the Northern Territory, but it is important to have these messages translated into language.
This goes to the heart of not just the bill before us today, but a commitment from the new government having won on the strength of a protest from the bush and governing for all Territorians. ‘It does not matter if you do not live on the Stuart Highway, you are a Territorian and we will do everything we can to be an inclusive government and rule for all Territorians’. That is not a question to you, just a comment, Attorney-General.
I listened with great interest to what the member for Stuart had to say. Obviously, her comments struck a chord with me and delivered another angle to this debate I had not thought a great deal about. Sorry, that is not true. I have heard it before, but to have said it on the floor of the House and placed it on the record is a sad indictment of where our system is. The member for Stuart said families want young people locked up because prisons are safe places where people can dry out for three months. It is where they are fed, a safe environment and where, sadly, many family members are, so they are not alone.
In contrast, a number of weeks ago I was talking with a senior woman from the Djapu clan who lives at Biritjimi just outside of Nhulunbuy. Her name is Dhangal Gurruwiwi and, in the adopted sense, she is my yapa, my sister, and is a very astute woman. She is a talented linguist and has been involved for a number of years in the Visiting Elders program - a fabulous program initiated when Labor was in government.
I was talking to her about the legislative changes coming up. She was quite shocked and angry. This woman has been very involved in the corrections side of things getting young men, particularly from northeast Arnhem Land, to come back on a work crew. I have an obligation to deliver a message to you, Attorney-General. She asked me to say these mandatory sentencing laws ‘they are stupid’.
Mr ELFERINK: With greatest respect, the message from me is I understand she does not agree. I also understand many Territorians agree, and the majority of Territorians supported the Country Liberals in this endeavour. Whilst I respect her right to dissent - our democracy is built on that beautiful and wonderful right – nevertheless, I am beholden to keep the commitment I made to the majority of Territorians who elected us.
Mr WOOD: I broke a promise, Mr Chairman...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this your last question?
Mr WOOD: I thought I would like to be a normal member of parliament and break a promise.
Attorney-General, you are also Minister for Justice. What are you doing as Minister for Justice to inform people of what sentences are handed down by the courts? In America, in some of the newspapers there is a court list which gives an indication to the community of what sentences are being handed out. You have not been able to give me any evidence today of what sentences have been applied for these offences over the last two years.
Do you not believe, as Minister for Justice, it is your role to inform people so they know what occurs in our courts - what sentences are handed down? Perhaps when sentences are light, there could be a summary of what has occurred. You might suggest going to the website, but most people will not trawl through the courts doing that. There could be a column in the paper saying what offences had gone to the courts and the sentencing. Do you believe you have a role in informing people so they know what is going on?
Mr ELFERINK: I was made Attorney-General and Minister for Justice by the Chief Minister. I thought about that title and it rests a little uncomfortably with me …
Mr WOOD: I thought it might.
Mr ELFERINK: I will explain why because I am happy to be Attorney-General. If you read the legislation creating my job, it says I am responsible for administration of the judiciary: to ensure the whole thing runs properly.
The Department of Justice is called the courts. One of the things a court has to consider in the justice process is what parliament thinks. They really are the Justice Department. In relation to your question, no we do not publish those numbers; we rely on the popular press. One of your complaints was the popular press does not do it properly.
Mr WOOD: You put your version.
Mr ELFERINK: I have not really turned my mind to that. This is the first time that suggestion has been made to me. I will take it under advice, but what I expect from the public is a capacity to inform themselves. The Deemed Papers list is full of annual reports from Attorney-General’s Department, Departments of Justice, different organisations that are beholden to government. If I go to the website the NAALAS report is there, the CAALAS report is there, and you will find at the back the graphs, the numbers, and who did what. It takes some research but is publically available.
The question for me would be to see if there was a benefit beyond all the other information we make available for the public to inform themselves.
As I said before, when the Chief Minister cannot get a 100% name recognition rate - some people simply do not do that no matter what you do.
Mr McCARTHY: Attorney-General, I enjoy committee stage and am glad I have been able to listen to the questions and your answers. It is enlightening to hear the subtle differences between the Labor legislative instrument and the Liberal legislative instrument, particularly your elaboration of the get-out-of-gaol clause in the instrument. It was good the difference in the legislation finally came out without all the filibustering, politics and spin.
I want to talk about - you did not accept my question or contribution - rehabilitation. What rehabilitation of an offender do you believe this legislative instrument can achieve with a sentence of three months?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, we have a number of programs in prison. You should be familiar with the QuickSmart program. We have expanded the packages to get prisoners to teach other prisoners. Yes, they are there for a short time and you cannot always set them to work or whatever. That is touched on in the ministerial statement circulated last night which we will talk about shortly.
In regard to rehabilitation, where this government can do it we will. I have said on a number of occasions, I am the minister for corrections not the minister for punishing the hell out of people. Nevertheless, a component of this legislation is focused at punishment and it is a balancing act between rehabilitation and punishment. There are tomes written on that point of stress. I refer to it as the argument between utilitarianism and retributive philosophy.
Some prisoners will provide you with some difficulty; however, if prisoners come into the system, we know them and they can be classified down to LS2 or open fairly quickly and meet all other requisite benchmarks, we might get them a job. That would be a good result.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, that was my next question. Have you done much research with the Northern Territory Prison Officers Association around classification of prisoners?
Mr ELFERINK: My word. I thank you personally, as former Minister for Corrections, for enabling the classification manual to be made available whilst I was in opposition and being able to read it from cover to cover.
Mr McCARTHY: In relation to somebody coming into the system, would remand be counted in regard to the minimum sentence?
Mr ELFERINK: That would be a consideration for the court.
Mr McCARTHY: Being the first law officer, remand is a difficult period to manage. Often you find prisoners, particularly offenders with assault charges, spending a fair deal of time in remand. Do you see this complicating your rehabilitation plans?
Mr ELFERINK: You are right; remand is a different class of prisoner because they are not guilty. They are a prisoner by virtue of the fact the courts do not trust them to be at large and remand them in gaol until such time as the court can hear their case. In what we can do with them, we cannot set them to work in the way we can instruct other prisoners to work. However, we can offer them opportunities and if they choose to accept those opportunities, so much the better.
Mr McCARTHY: If you had an offender on remand for two months and then sentenced to three months minimum, therefore only having a month to serve in prison, what are your thoughts on the rehabilitation outcomes in that case?
Mr ELFERINK: Not particularly good, if that is what you are after.
Mr McCARTHY: Considering the judicial agencies have told me they expect an escalation in prison numbers, do you see this as a real challenge for the system? The system is very much under pressure at the moment.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but you said in your contribution remand was a problem for you. What has changed?
Mr McCARTHY: With a new legislative instrument it could make it worse. Do you think so?
Mr ELFERINK: No, it was pretty bad under you.
Mr McCARTHY: We established the QuickSmart program. However, as you would know as Minister for Correctional Services, when you have prisoners entering the system with that classification it is difficult to get them into any program or good rehabilitation initiative. We seem to end up with a backlog at the front end of the prison system. Are you telling me your legislative instrument will do nothing to address that?
Mr ELFERINK: We are talking about a sentencing provision in the Sentencing Act. This is an instruction from the parliament to the court. What you are talking about is offender management or, in the case of remand prisoners, remand prisoner management. You admitted you struggled desperately with this issue. We could make all sentences one year long. That way we could have more control over prisoners for a whole year and bring some rehabilitation to bear over that time. That would be useful and we could find them jobs six months before they leave prison. I suspect you would object to that, so it comes back to the problem of time.
I understand what you are saying and am not disagreeing with you. It will not get any worse because of the operation of this legislative instrument. As we roll out future programs within the Corrections system, particularly things like QuickSmart and other programs, we hope to capture some of those. You will not capture them all because some prisoners will just say no.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I get what you are saying but the justice agencies inform me there will be an increase in incarcerations. Let us talk about that 12 months because, under the new era in Corrections and the Labor policy, we were directly targeting prisoner sentences under 12 months to keep them out of gaol. You are right; that is what we were doing. It was an attempt to deliver a better rehabilitation outcome through community resources and alternative sentencing.
The whole judicial system was behind it. I was lobbied strongly by the judicial sector and justice agencies to include offenders with assault convictions in it. I delivered that to Caucus and Cabinet and we debated it. Yes, that 12 months is critical, but it would be better done outside a prison sentence than having the minimum sentence in a prison.
The member for Stuart spoke about Indigenous families supporting incarceration of family members. Do you believe minimum mandatory sentencing will create welfarism and Indigenous people, as the member for Stuart said, could see it as a good thing and we will see more Indigenous people incarcerated? At the moment, it is unacceptable that 82% of family members are missing out on their children’s birthdays, on ceremony, not being able to participate in their cultural obligations, not being with their wives or husbands, and having all the fears, frustrations, and intimidations of the custodial system.
I am worried, having heard that comment, about what you are doing with mandatory sentencing. Do you believe some real issues could emerge there?
Mr ELFERINK: That invites about 15 different topics. First, welfarism. If you want to talk about welfare and its destructive role in our community, let us look at passive welfare. Put that aside because you know my opinions on that; there is no need to go there. It is sad some Aboriginal families – I was not going to say that. I do not like talking about Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal in many contexts, and this is one of them, because it is not just about Aboriginality. If you want to look for correlations between people in gaol and a class of people, go for socioeconomic. It is much more pronounced in the socioeconomic structure than in Aboriginality. If you are looking for classes, let us use socioeconomic.
You are now talking about prisoners as though they are some patient in need of care. That is largely what the member for Stuart described. You were very concerned, as minister for Corrections, about outcomes, as am I, but I do not lose sight of the fact these people are in gaol because they are volunteers. They have done something to put them in gaol; they have committed a crime, an offence, or are currently standing trial for an offence and being held in custody because the courts do not trust them to be at liberty.
Every sentenced prisoner is there because they are a volunteer and I do not forget that. They are responsible, and being held responsible, for their actions. If their health improves as a result so much the better for them, but it does not say much about the lifestyle they are leading. If you want to talk about the lifestyle they are leading, health in gaol is better for them, you open up the debate about welfarism, the philosophy of deviance and that type of thing. We are talking about clause 5 in the committee stage of the bill. I do not believe we need to have that debate. However, I understand and am not being negative about what you are saying.
Mr McCARTHY: When we look, on a national level, at trying to address disadvantage and the alarming statistic that 82% of our prison population is Aboriginal and our recidivism rates are 49%, which is out of the ballpark compared to national levels relating to Aboriginal people, as elected community members we have to do something. I like what the member for Nelson says about showing leadership. It is very difficult to normalise people’s lives if you have great numbers of family members absent, particularly if they are in custody. The member for Stuart says there is a real challenge to this legislative instrument if this thinking is real in the community. Prison is a good place to be. Your job is to turn that around and ensure prison is not a good place to be. That is why I keep debating community solutions and alternative sentencing like community custody orders, community work orders and home detention. These strategies are used, in a global context, with many other Indigenous people as well. The comments from the member for Stuart and this new legislative instrument will collide and it will deliver a worse outcome for rehabilitation and recidivism. Would you like to comment, minister?
Mr ELFERINK: You are a long way from this instrument. It is my job to ensure prison is not a good place to be. What do you want me to do? Flog them? Feed them gruel? Lock them up in a broom closet and not let them out? That would not make it a good place to be. This is from the lips of a former Corrections minister. I do not believe prison would be a good place for me because I would see it as a massive imposition on my liberty and freedom. That is why I try not to commit offences, definitely serious criminal offences.
Unfortunately, there are many people on the lower socioeconomic rungs of our community who do not necessarily see prison in that light. I do not mean only people who live in the Northern Territory. You can go to Sydney and find people like that. When a person has such a low standard of their sense of dignity and self-worth, the issue of whether prison is a good place to be is almost a sideline. The real issue is major problems with their own standard and expectation of themselves. People who have reached that low ebb need to start revisiting themselves. The last thing they need at such a low ebb is free money shoved into their hand every fortnight and say, ‘Go your hardest’. That is a recipe for destruction.
Mr McCARTHY: That really defines the difference in policy. As the previous minister for Corrections, I was trying to keep that low-level recidivist, socially disadvantaged person, or that type of offender, out of gaol. You talk about crime and punishment then have the rant trying to intimidate me and include me in the Hansard - what you want me to do. I was trying to make the community solution harder because the member for Stuart is saying prison is seen as an easy option. In opposition, you used to belt me with that. You used to lead that out. The Liberal opposition used metaphors around hotels and all that jive. You were one of the leaders in that. I said to Corrections, Caucus and government, ‘We should make the community solution tougher’. It is. I have interviewed many offenders in my time and they would say, ‘No, I want the conditions of these orders. Lock me up and I will do time’. They would say things similar to what the member for Stuart mentioned. ‘It is okay. We are fed well, get a bed, it is safe, there is no humbug, we are looked after and then we get a bus ticket home’. I took that to government and to Corrections and said. ‘Let us make it tougher’. Guess where it is tougher? - On the outside.
That is why we tried to drive up the relationship with agencies that could provide work and normalise a person’s life. They would get up, do something constructive, then go home and tell their family about it because that is the essence of building self-esteem.
Minister, we have come to the point of difference in this debate and I thank you for that. If you are serious about rehabilitation the community options need to be tougher. The member for Stuart would be well-advised to continue this dialogue. Let us work together to toughen this system up.
We have discovered a point where the tougher option is a community solution where we can mandate work, rehabilitation and education in a community context and people are connected to family and their responsibilities as a member of society who elected you, Attorney-General, to do what you are doing now...
Mr CHAIRMAN: I remind members Standing Order 191 clearly says:
Could members please bear that in mind when speaking, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Most illuminating, thank you.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank staff for the briefing and information provided. I hope more information is forthcoming.
This is an important bill and I am sad we did not have more contributors to debate. There are some basic issues about justice and law and order which need much more debate. I do not accept the Attorney-General’s view that because people say they want something you necessary go along with it. If the captain of the footy team had to listen to all the players he would not be much of a captain.
There are times to lead and times to listen. There are times to inform people and, as leaders in our society, we should be trying to inform people, even on unpopular issues. This is an important issue.
The Attorney-General said people elected his government based on a mandate. I always laugh at that. Previous Chief Ministers and Prime Ministers have said, ‘We have been elected on a mandate’. The mandate has about 200 different issues in it. The government might have been elected on its promise to reduce the cost of living. I roll my eyes at that. It is insincere for any government to say voters agreed with everything the government promised. They would elect a government based on something they supported, even if it was not everything. It is wrong to say, ‘We were elected because this was our policy’. You may have been elected because you offered sports vouchers to every child at school or $5200 for every house out bush. If you had said to people out bush, ‘On the other hand, we are going to lock people up for three months’, people might have had a different view.
This is such an important bill with ramifications into the future. It will lock up more people and take away a fundamental tenet of our judicial system which has judges and magistrates fitting the crime to the punishment. This does not do that and we are going back to 1933. In 1939 they must have been enlightened and scrapped it. We have not learnt from history.
What I heard today worries me. If the government bases its ideas and legislation on what people say, you have populist legislation not always founded on good principles. We, as parliamentarians, should be willing to put our heads on the chopping block when it comes to certain issues. We are not elected to sit here like lumps of concrete. We are here to inform people and develop good debate in our society so people have a broader knowledge of the issues. We cannot rely on the media.
I mentioned the article from the judicial conference in 2011 about problems with the media. Much of the tabloid media is looking for sensationalism, not depth, in what is happening. They want to sell papers; I understand that. In many cases journalism today, unfortunately, is about the dollar - trying to sell papers to make a profit. In some cases it is more about amusement and excitement and, when it comes to deep analysis of serious subjects, some of our newspapers are lacking.
Madam Speaker, that means we, as members of parliament, have a bigger responsibility to inform the public. I am worried if we believe because the public said something we should go along. Developing our legislation and policies that way in this parliament is not good for the future of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 5 December 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support this sensible bill. From time to time legislative instruments are found to have errors in them which mean they do not provide the full protection intended. In this circumstance our legislative instrument does not provide full protection for victims of domestic violence where the offender is on bail because there is ambiguity around the bail conditions.
This comes from a loophole discovered in New South Wales and tested in the case of Lawson v Dunlevy where conditions of bail required the plaintiff not to consume alcohol for any reason and submit to a breath test when requested by a police officer. The latter, in particular, was found to be, essentially, out of order and not lawful. Whilst that has been resolved and the New South Wales legislation amended, for the Northern Territory it means magistrates have not been enforcing bail conditions; in particular, compliance with bail conditions whilst there was ambiguity in our own legislation.
Forgive me if I oversimplify this, but my understanding is, essentially we are seeking to fix a loophole to ensure that when conditions of bail are set they are very clear and ensure the offender is doing the right thing. That includes being able to put conditions on bail which reduce the risk of harm to the victim.
Madam Speaker, the opposition supports these bills. We welcome them, as we welcome anything which continues to protect the victims of domestic and family violence. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their attention to this matter. There is nothing I can say to add weight to this debate.
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 ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, having a light workload today, I thought I would rise to my feet. Not having said anything before the House today, I felt it was necessary for me to participate.
I inform the House of the government’s proposals in relation to maintenance of prisoners within the penal system of the Northern Territory. This ministerial statement is deliberately concise as it pertains to one component of Corrections in the Northern Territory, namely, asking prisoners to work. The value of work itself will be the touchstone of this government’s approach to reducing the unacceptably high rates of recidivism. I would like to sentence prisoners to a job and, thereby, a future.
Upon becoming Minister for Correctional Services, I read various philosophical works to seek guidance as to what Corrections in the Northern Territory should look like. Basically, there are two schools of philosophy: retributive and utilitarianism. Whilst I found this research enlightening, albeit brief, I am unsure if those esoteric philosophies will have the effect of informing me, as Minister for Correctional Services in the Northern Territory, in any useful way.
Nevertheless, crime and punishment is an issue which has followed humanity for as long as humans have existed. In our civilised world, we live in an environment where people expect punishment to be meted out to the guilty but in a fashion which engenders faith in a system and civility. I do not subscribe to the lex talionis or ‘eye for eye’ principle of justice alone. There must be a philosophy of correction in the mix. After all, I am not the minister for punishing the hell out of people; I am Minister for Correctional Services.
I have said in this House before the philosophy of this government will require eligible prisoners to work. Work is a fundamental form of salvation for people because a person with a job or meaningful employment understands, in the core of their being, what self-worth is about. All too often in the Northern Territory there are people who have never experienced holding down a job long enough to know the immense tangible/intangible benefits that come with a job rather than just a pay packet. Identity, self-worth, self-belief can all come from making your own way in the world and having a productive life.
Inside the Corrections system, particularly once this new gaol is open - I will not go into what an unmitigated disaster that is because of the former Labor government’s incapacity to effectively manage the contract surrounding the gaol - I will ensure the value of work is a fundamental component in the rehabilitation of all offenders capable of working. In short, every prisoner will be expected, one way or another, to do some work. In effect, a prisoner will be sentenced to a job to secure themself a future.
The government is aware you cannot force prisoners to work. However, we will not replicate the current welfare attitude where individuals expect something for nothing. Under this government, prisoners will have to earn or work for their privileges. Every privilege granted in the Northern Territory prison system will be earned, which means a prisoner who chooses not to work within the system can expect the bare minimum of custodial requirements. Every prisoner who wants more than the bare minimum will be given the opportunity to work and earn the privileges they seek. This will apply to maximum, medium, low security 1, low security 2 and open prisoners.
Many of the prisoners currently in our system are not violent offenders. Of the adults sentenced to prison in 2011–12, 44% were for non-violent offences. In my experience as a police officer in the Northern Territory, having arrested perhaps 1000 people, I would probably have dealt with only five or six bad, evil, wicked people. As for the rest, whilst all those convicted were guilty of offences, in truth they were guilty of stupidity. They did stupid things often under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. They were still responsible for their own actions, as we would expect them to be. However, many were not truly bad villains.
Consequently, my personal experience will be reflected in the general population of a gaol, and having visited the gaols since becoming Minister for Correctional Services, the assumption remains valid. It follows that the vast majority of prisoners in our system, once straight or sober, are no longer in the mindset which led them to the offence and, consequently, into prison in the first place. Nevertheless, we have a classification system in place to ensure we identify prisoners who should have certain liberties extended to them and we also identify prisoners who should have liberties taken away.
Prisoners who demonstrate a capacity to improve themselves will be given every opportunity to do so. Nevertheless, improvements are earned. This government has increased by two the number of prison work gangs in the community. The community responds well to the work gangs because they see prisoners paying their debt to the community. This gives people comfort that prisoners are serving their time in a manner which makes them accountable for their actions. It is common for a prisoner to leave the prison system with no education, no job, no home, no money and no capacity, at a mental or emotional level, to overcome the situation. They have no opportunity other than their own limited horizons and experience to change their life. In the absence of that opportunity they default to what they know, which is what put them into prison in the first place.
I ask honourable members to imagine a world where a prisoner is released from prison because they were able to tell the parole board they had been working in a job for a number of months, had money in the bank, and were part of a system which would ensure they had some type of accommodation available when they left prison. Such a prisoner is much less likely to become a recidivist than the inmates currently leaving the system and returning in droves.
The almost 50% recidivism rate is arguably underestimated. A recidivist is someone who commits the same or similar offence within two years of being released. Many of our prisoners return to custody after committing different offences or offences outside the two-year period required for the definition. In truth, recidivism rates are likely to be substantially higher.
I am sure all members would agree whatever figure is used it is an unacceptably high rate. Also, that it is important to create an environment where we can release prisoners who have repaid their debt to society and are able to productively integrate into the community and, most importantly, are work-ready. Not all prisoners will be able to take advantage of such a circumstance. Some prisoners will be in custody for a short time and it is difficult to find them a job. Remand prisoners do not stand convicted of any offence and, unless they volunteer, will not be available to do any work. However, many prisoners are classified as LS2 - low security 2 - or open prisoners.
When in opposition, I read the classification manual used by Northern Territory Correctional Services to understand the process. I acknowledge the former Minister for Corrections, the member for Barkly, for his assistance in this area. Understanding the classification process and the prison population enables this government to assertively engage in this new policy.
I am pleased to announce to the House today this government engaged in a trial Sentenced to a Job program mooted by the former government but not truly understood in its capacity to make change. Nevertheless, from Day 1, I enthusiastically adopted this program and sought to place prisoners in working environments.
The trial Sentenced to a Job program initially saw 18 people released from daily custody to work. It has now expanded to 30 prisoners released from custody on a daily basis. So far, I am pleased to report, we have not lost a single prisoner due to absconding. So far, employers have been very happy with the prisoners they have been employing. The Sentenced to a Job program is not convict labour. The prisoners who take advantage of the program have real jobs for real pay – they are being paid award wages for the work they are doing.
It may surprise members to learn one prisoner is working in a professional organisation in town - a role one would consider a white collar job. Many other prisoners participating in the program do not have high levels of literacy or numeracy but, nevertheless, have found productive work. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Foxy Robinson, known to all members of this House, for embracing this program.
I spoke to a prisoner working at one of Foxy’s organisations who told me, because of the opportunities he had been given, this was the best thing that had happened to him in his entire life. Such a response has a far greater weight than any academic analysis. This government accepts there is an element of risk in this program - we could lose prisoners who escape; the opportunity to escape could not be more obvious. Nevertheless, the experience of the trial program has been these prisoners have chosen not to escape but take advantage of the opportunity provided.
To give members comfort, one example is a prisoner who has graduated through the Sentenced to a Job program and been released. That prisoner had a job with a company and, upon release from prison, was told he could continue working with the organisation. The organisation is so impressed with the program it decided to take on a second prisoner using the first prisoner as a mentor.
It is explained to employers when they take prisoners on they can, because of the casual arrangement, terminate the employment at any time should they feel the prisoner is not up to standard. So far, that has not occurred.
The Sentenced to a Job program is designed to get people job-ready and into jobs before they leave prison. However, they are still contributors to the community in a tangible way. Five per cent of their income is quarantined for the Victims Assistance Fund, and a further $125 per week is retained to pay board. The rest of the money is placed into a trust pending their release with the exception of a small amount, depending on the prisoner, which they can use inside the prison.
A prisoner with a full-time job on award wages could be earning $600 to $700 per week. The Victims Assistance Fund is a voluntary component; however, if they choose not to pay it they will not be eligible for the program. The board contribution is a compulsory component of the program reinforcing the prisoner’s understanding they have to pay their way in life. The money they can spend in the prison will, essentially, make them the richest people there. This makes the work program an attractive option to other prisoners. The effect is people towards the end of their sentence are gaining more liberty with their spending power inside the prison, and understand they will have thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of dollars available to them the day they leave prison. We hope they use that money wisely. However, a free person in this society is a free person; if they choose to use that money for other purposes it is a matter for themselves and their family. Nevertheless, we continue to work hard to ensure we have successful outcomes.
I can say now the trial Sentenced to a Job program has been successful beyond my wildest expectations. We look forward to expanding this program and are cautious the classification of prisoners means we do not see the wrong people getting into the program. It is important to clarify sex offenders are not eligible for this program. This program is about giving people about to be released a new chance in life, one they would probably otherwise not known.
I ask honourable members to engage in a mental exercise. Imagine a person from Yuendumu or Beswick going through the NT prison system. They have not had the opportunities many other Territorians have had in life and their education is often not of a standard attractive to an employer. We place them four, five or six months prior to the end of their sentence in a tyre workshop. They learn how to work in that environment but, being a prisoner, being Aboriginal, and not being a good communicator with other people in the workshop, they feel awkward and alien because they are in an alien environment.
I will tell you what I believe humans are about. Before too long in that environment - I know this for a fact - this person would be invited to sit at the lunch room and share their lunch. On Day 2, they will be feeling awkward and alien but becoming more familiar with the people around them. After a week, they will continue going to work. Their experience will tell them this is not necessarily a scary place, but one where people can be friendly and accept them irrespective of their background.
I ask you to project forward, honourable members, to a period after several months. The routine of going to work will be familiar to the prisoner and they know their job. They will, without question, join other workers at the lunch table and feel a sense of belonging in a workplace which they have never known before. The government hopes that sense of belonging will engender in them a sense of pride, self-worth and usefulness that, in many instances, these people would never have known. Something like that should be the catalyst for a life-changing series of decisions.
As they experience more work in that environment, particularly after they have been released from custody and continue work, they will discover a liberty far greater than they have known as they are economically independent but, more importantly, emotionally and psychologically independent in a way they never understood previously.
That is the point of the program - what we are trying to do. The government believe in this. This government has a liberal disposition and believes in personal responsibility and that people should be answerable for their crimes. Nevertheless, we also believe a person truly at liberty is so because they have earned the right to be so. Such a lesson is invaluable and will teach prisoners subject to it a lesson of personal values in philosophy where people become responsible and answerable only to themselves and, moreover, are proud to do so.
I commend this statement to honourable members of this House because I know all members will see it as good, sound policy which will build futures.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the minister’s first ministerial statement on Corrections. It is important the Northern Territory hears his ideas and philosophies on Corrections because it is clear we are going to see many more incarcerations and bucket loads of correction under his watch, given the bill just passed in this House around mandatory sentencing. That will see many more people in our Corrections facilities.
It is important to know where the minister is coming from. He is clearly the action minister of his government and highly interventionist; strongly driven by his own personal experiences and world view of the need for correction. The previous government, particularly during the time my colleague, the member for Barkly, was Corrections minister, well-understood this is a key area of government policy fundamental to the administration of justice, community safety, and the wellbeing of the Northern Territory.
That is why we developed our new era in Corrections and sought to broaden the tool box available for dealing with people sentenced to prison – mainstream prison or through the juvenile justice system - with the fundamental objective of meeting community expectations in penalty and the real focus and effort to reduce recidivism.
Under Labor, a key part of the new era in Corrections were the key initiatives: the new Doug Owston Correctional Centre well under construction; the new forensic mental health unit and improved facilities for offenders with mental health issues; the open security prisoner supported accommodation unit; the visiting elders centre; and the multi-classification correctional centre. All were critical infrastructure necessary for the delivery of the new minister’s agenda. We are happy, as the former Labor government, to have set this up for him to step into.
It is telling the minister began his statement with a short homily on the philosophy underpinning different approaches to Corrections. However, I am intrigued by his suggestion employment programs for prisoners are fundamental to their salvation. I understand developing new skills, dealing with alcohol and substance abuse issues and building self-esteem and life skills through employment programs are important to successful re-entry to society and a reduction in recidivism. We, on this side, agree with that. However, to say this is the path to personal salvation is an odd turn of phrase.
The minister said too often in the Northern Territory there are people who have never experienced holding down a job long enough to know the immense intangible benefits that come with a job other than a pay packet. We, on this side, have always understood the benefit to people and the flow-on to families through employment and the dignity of work our former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, often spoken of.
As a parliament, we share a responsibility to work as hard as we can to develop employment opportunities for our citizens, particularly Territorians living in regional and remote communities and those not participating in the mainstream economy but surviving day to day through demand sharing from family and the welfare economy. All on this side of the House have enjoyed the benefits of education and employment and aim to contribute to family and community wellbeing as a result of that.
That is why I am keen to hear from other ministers and members representing bush seats how they plan to work together to improve health, education, employment, and the opportunities in our bush communities to grow and strengthen them and their capacity at the individual, family and community level. It is only through capacity building that people will build lives which allow them to choose what pathway they want to follow. We have not seen a great deal of action in that area from the new government, rather an increase in the cost of living which is hitting hard upon our poorest families.
As I mentioned in debate yesterday, whilst many people are leaving the Northern Territory because it is too costly to live here, one element of the community not going anywhere is our remote Indigenous communities. They are people’s home, their country, and they are there for life, generation after generation. It is worrying how these families will cope with the increased costs of living, not the least of which is the debacle around increased power costs but, more importantly, communication as to how people can deal with that.
I would love to hear an explanation for putting drunks back on our streets, allowing people open slather access to alcohol and, with it, the consequent increase in humbug and criminal behaviour contributing to an increase in the gaol population. How does opening up the rivers of grog help reduce alcohol-related crime? How does that translate into consequent gaoling for alcohol-related offences and, of course, back on the cycle of recidivism? Perhaps establishing drinking clubs out bush and linking access to alcohol to work may be an initiative some are considering. I am sure we will talk more about this.
However, can the minister explain how budget cuts to education, particularly remote education, will help us on the pathway to full employment for all our citizens? The minister has a lead role to play here because he holds the important portfolio of Education. We know the core of what sets people on a path for life where they have choice and opportunity is education. We have always said, and will continue to do so, if people can get their children to school every day they will access a quality education. However, given the cuts we are seeing in education, I am concerned about that pathway through education, VET programs and training, and the opportunities for young people once they move through school.
The member for Barkly spoke about encouraging young people to take up the opportunities happening through INPEX and recognises there are families for whom leaving their community is not an option; they want to stay on their community. What are the options for those young people after leaving school and the connection to work in their own community?
If the minister is serious about finding ways to address non-violent offenders’ health and substance issues and support them to transition to work, he has to give the SMART Court more time to demonstrate the value of an alternative to sentencing - an alternative pathway to keep non-violent offenders out of the Corrections system. At the end of last year he announced it was to be abolished to save $4.2m.
I find it ironic to be talking about Corrections and the Sentenced to a Job program. The idea of the SMART Court is it puts people on a pathway to a job. I had a lengthy conversation last week with Ruth Oakden, Senior Chaplain and Second Step Program Manager with a special employment program run by Toll Holdings. Hopefully, I will be meeting her when she comes to the Northern Territory at the end of this month and, hopefully, visits Nhulunbuy because Toll Marine operates in Nhulunbuy through to Groote Eylandt. Essentially, they run the Second Step program which deals with people who, as a result of substance abuse, misuse or alcohol addiction, are trying to break the cycle of addiction, get their lives back on the straight and narrow and on a pathway to a job and, with it, security, financial sustainability and choices in life.
This is a positive option and a powerful program yet the Attorney-General is ready to throw it out because it costs too much and he does not believe, after 18 months, it has worked. He made that assessment with no formal evaluation and ears closed to those asking him to reconsider, including NAAJA and the Chief Justice, who is very supportive of the SMART Court program. If we are serious about getting offenders into a job - it does not matter if it is in a Corrections facility - what about alternative options like the SMART Court which is also about getting people into a job? It is incredibly short-sighted to consider throwing out the SMART Court. Is the Attorney-General also meeting with Ms Oakden? She wrote to him on 17 January and forwarded a copy of her letter to me.
The key theme of the minister’s statement is he aims to sentence prisoners to a job to secure a future for them. Work and employment programs in our Corrections system are important and the minister acknowledges, almost reluctantly, current activities are initiatives mooted by the former government. Early in 2009, when I was not long a member, with the announcement of the new prison, never having been in a prison in my life I took it upon myself to go through Berrimah prison and the Don Dale Centre. I was escorted by Mr Ken Middlebrook, now the CEO.
I was horrified by what I saw going through Berrimah prison. Quite apart from the very old physical environment - they are not meant to be pleasant places to be, God forbid - I was horrified by what I saw. Obviously, there were many prisoners and spaces intended for training which had been converted to dormitories. Essentially, this place has outgrown what it was originally designed for. I am not a softie but am a humanitarian and I know people in Berrimah prison. Sadly, they are family members of constituents of mine, Indigenous and non-Indigenous. That place is awful and if we are serious about rehabilitating prisoners they need to be in a more modern facility which lends itself to rehabilitation. That is not to mention the conditions prison officers are expected to work in as well.
It is only since I have taken on the responsibility of shadow for Corrections I sought, in November, the opportunity to look through the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, which is much more modern. It is full but has facilities to allow prisoners to be engaged in meaningful activities, learning new skills, workshops - that is where they produce all the number plates for the Northern Territory. People were building trailers, doing mechanical courses, hands-on stuff, a credit to the former Minister for Corrections for establishing and building these schemes so by the time people leave prison they have skills to get a job.
Obviously, jobs in prisons are important, but let us not forget literacy and numeracy. I am familiar with the QuickSmart program. I have a child who went through it a couple of years ago with great success. However, those programs allow people to do things like paint in an artistic sense. I strongly support Darwin Community Legal Service and the annual event it holds - the exhibition of prisoner artwork. What is that exhibition called?
Mr McCarthy: Behind the Wire.
Ms WALKER: Behind the Wire. I am disappointed I have not managed to make it to those exhibitions. I missed the one in December when it was opened at the Supreme Court. It is a really important outlet for people. Let us face it, being an artist is a job and if you are good it can generate income.
I have not been to the Barkly Work Camp. Unfortunately, nor has the Leader of the Opposition, so I will give you plenty of notice, Attorney-General, when I want to visit it. I am hoping to get down that way in the next couple of months and am keen to see what has been happening there. Again, that is an initiative brought forward and to fruition by the former Labor government under the stewardship of the member for Barkly. I look forward to seeing further work camps develop whether it is Katherine - I would love to see one in northeast Arnhem Land but, for the time being, we will make do with the mobile work camp which comes out around Garma time - a very successful program. It is costly but there is much value to it.
The success of any support or programs for individuals has to take account of the circumstances that those individual have to work in on release from prison. Things like the person’s family circumstances, the accommodation available to underpin a new start, the economic demands on the individual on release from prison and their personal health. Adjacent to the Barkly Work Camp is a facility – what is the word for it Gerry …
Mr Wood: A pony club.
Ms WALKER: No, it is not a pony club. It is like a halfway house that allows prisoners on release to be somewhere for an adjustment period.
All these things will ultimately influence the success of the pathway from Corrections to full-time employment. Obviously, release of people once they have served time in a Corrections facility back to their community needs to be carefully managed to ensure people, as best we can, are prepared for that release and get back to their community and do not stray off on a path which keeps them away from home and may see them reoffend and end up back in the Corrections facility they were just been released from. Interestingly, the minister did not address all those things in his statement. Perhaps he had other things to focus on. He dwelt on the importance of individual responsibility, but he was silent on other issues which, ultimately, affect the life journey of any individual.
The ministerial statement was big on philosophy. It was an opportunity for the minister to preach how things will be different now he has his hands on the wheel. The statement noted prisoners will have to earn or work for their privileges. It would have been good to hear more about that and what is meant when the minister said:
I am keen to hear more about ‘the bare minimum of custodial requirements’ and this new classification system being introduced into our Corrections system.
The minister said prisoners who demonstrate they have a capacity to improve themselves will be given every opportunity to do so. How will that capacity be assessed? What standards will be applied? Are there to be two categories of prisoner - those who enjoy an abundance of riches and benefits, the ones the minister says will be relatively rich in the prison system; and a second underclass, potentially a larger number of prisoners, on the bare minimum and beyond salvation?
Let us return to the more positive aspects of this scheme; that is, support for people to develop skills, establish personal goals, develop a financial stake to leave prison, find employment and enjoy all the benefits of productive employment and life in our great Northern Territory. How will the minister’s vision support a prisoner on release? How will they access practical support in the transition to work, especially when on the other side of the ledger we see cuts to NGOs and social support services for Territorians and, as mentioned earlier, that big whacking cut of $4.2m from the SMART Court?
How is the Minister for Regional Development and Indigenous Advancement working with the Minister for Correctional Services to reduce the hurdles on the ground to provide more employment opportunities in our bush towns and less recidivism? That goes back to what I was talking about earlier - going to the heart of what is happening in communities to build capacity for people to be in charge of their lives.
What is the Minister for Indigenous Advancement doing about anything, nearly six months into government, except offering an armchair commentary from the sidelines? I, unfortunately, have not seen the minister in northeast Arnhem Land yet. In fact, I have not seen any ministers other than the Chief Minister. I look forward to seeing the Minister for Health visit. Many people will want to chat with him about scrapping the medi-hotel. The people of Laynhapuy Homelands are disappointed two board meetings have come and gone where they were expecting the Minister for Indigenous Advancement and the Chief Minister and, sadly, they have not been able to attend those meetings. Let us hope it is not too far away.
I look at how much work the Attorney-General and Minister for Correctional Services has on his plate and the vigour, energy, and action he has in his portfolio. He is on the phone ringing employers saying, ‘Can you take a bunch?’ He was dashing out of Cabinet to attend the scene of a bus crash worried about what had happened to students involved in an accident. He is donning the robes and ...
Mr Elferink: Is it a bad thing to go to the scene of an accident?
Ms WALKER: I am commending you for your commitment and energy. I would like to see it in a few more of your colleagues, including the Minister for Indigenous Advancement...
Mr Elferink: I love my job and love the opportunity I have been blessed with.
Ms WALKER: That is very apparent, minister.
Ms WALKER: I will comment on the requirement that 5% of the income from a prisoner’s work is garnisheed for the Victims Assistance Fund. The minister said this is voluntary but if you do not agree to the donation you are not eligible for the program. They accuse us of spin! Why be bashful? Why not say straight out this is a requirement for participants in the work scheme…
Mr Elferink: Because we cannot force them.
Ms WALKER: You will address that. We also note prisoners will be required to pay board for their time in prison. Do they enjoy a better standard of accommodation to those who do not pay board? Is this a way of trying to scavenge more revenue any way you can? If you were truly serious about helping people move on to a more productive life and not reoffend, would it not be better for funds to be quarantined to help with that move after prison?
A prisoner on the way out does need a hand up, especially with family commitments, accommodation, and the rising cost of living. It is expensive enough in remote areas already, but to put up power by 30% - we have families in the dark in some homes because their power cards are not lasting as long.
Their own independent financial support established through their own labour is the way it should be. The minister spoke about prisoners on the work program being more economically independent but also, and more importantly, more emotionally and psychologically independent in a way they never understood previously.
Of course, we encourage these pathways to a more productive and positive life, but say again this statement dwells on the individual. I heard nothing about how the program operates with an eye to the family circumstances of individuals. How is that taken into account and how will transition into productive family and community life be supported? How will the prisoner be supported to maximise the benefits of the program and how will he or she be able to use that opportunity to maximise its benefits in the context of individual family and community circumstances?
I am pleased you find it so amusing, member for Fong Lim.
Do we build up expectations, pat them on the back and send them home hoping they have learnt a lesson with not much more than our very best wishes for the future…
Mr Tollner: And a job. Oddly enough, a job comes in their somewhere.
Ms WALKER: Not if you have been in there for three months, unfortunately, under the new mandatory sentencing. It is highly unlikely in three months there will be the opportunity for that level of outcome.
However, we are pleased to see the new minister picking up on the work of the member for Barkly in his time as Minister for Corrections and Labor’s very progressive reforms. We are happy to see you riding on the coat-tails of that, minister, because we set it up for you. We will all benefit in hearing from other government ministers in this debate, as well as backbench members, on how work within their own constituency or portfolio areas aims to create more employment for all our citizens, reduce alcohol-related offences and, importantly, reduce recidivism and the overall gaol population.
Minister, your office was one of the first I went to seeking an incoming brief around shadow responsibilities. I had the Corrections briefing several months ago but I know you are doing things around youth. I am a little worried you call them boot camps, but I will get to that briefing. I will also get to the Barkly Work Camp.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to any work you are doing to increase employment for prisoners after gaol, provide them with life skills such that, hopefully, we will not see them reoffend, and get them off the cycle of recidivism. Thank you, minister, for bringing this statement before the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for his statement. I am a great supporter of prisoners working. I also agree if people do not work there should be some consequence, bearing in mind some people will not be able to work for various reasons and there should be some allowance for that. People who go to prison should be able to work. There is a cost to that, and I hope the government has something in mind in the budget to cover that because we know from the day work groups it is not cheap. We also have the Batchelor Institute training centre at Berrimah prison. It is a great contribution which gets people ready to leave prison with some skills. Those areas also need to be pushed along with what you are talking about today.
We can look for points on who did what, but before this government won the election prisoners were going out to work. I have seen prisoners at the Tivendale Road bus stop ready for work and they come back at the end of day. It was occurring during the previous government’s term and is great to see …
Mr Elferink: Not to this level.
Mr WOOD: People have been going to work. I am commenting, minister, that it is expanding now and is a great way forward. I spent some time in Ohio and hope one day, minister, you might look at other prisons. I have seen about nine different prisons in Australia, most of them not …
Mr Elferink: Start pleading not guilty!
Mr WOOD: If they had a choice of judge they might not have to go to gaol, they might have home detention.
There are different forms of prison and one is a therapeutic community. I visited two in Ohio and they are certainly another option. People in that prison went out to work during the day. People were working for the council, one gentleman was working at the local pizza shop, and a couple of people were working at the lumber yards. It is not new but is something we can take on more and more in the Northern Territory.
The member for Nhulunbuy raised some interesting questions. Working prisoners should pay board because they are receiving an income. It is expensive to feed and look after prisoners and if they have the luxury of going out to earn a wage, part of that wage should pay for their ‘accommodation’. It is an excellent idea.
The complementary area to what you are doing is education. It is no good sending out prisoners if their basic literacy and numeracy skills are very low. That is one of the difficulties, especially with short-term prisoners. It is one of the good outcomes of the new prison. I have visited Berrimah prison and say to people who criticise the new prison, if they believe our old prison is suitable I will go he. It is a dump and needs upgrading to a standard which would, hopefully, contribute to reducing the number of prisoners. Education at Berrimah prison is a number of classrooms taking up the original hall and the standard of facilities was not what you would expect if you were serious about changing people’s lives.
It is different in Alice Springs where there are more purpose-built facilities. Will there be any educational requirements before people go out to work or are you expecting them to do labouring type jobs? Are you looking to upskill them as they go out to work so they can move up the ladder a little?
I am also a great supporter of industries within prison. What are the government’s plans for the prison farm? It has spoken about whether the mandatory alcohol rehabilitation centre will be there. Where a mandatory alcohol rehabilitation centre should be located should not be decided yet. There needs to be much more discussion with CAAPS, FORWAARD and Amity Community Services before we decide on the type of place and where it would go in relation to mandatory rehabilitation of people with an alcohol problem.
I hope the new prison will develop industries. There was discussion about a bakery. I have been to the prison and ...
Mr Elferink: We have one of those coming.
Mr WOOD: What sometimes bothers me is industry’s concern about the prison industry competing. You have 1000 Territorians and there is a requirement to give them as much work as possible. If that means industries in the prison, so be it. Someone recently mentioned the vegetable garden and some of the local suppliers might be a bit crook about that. That is a non-argument. The ability to supply enough fruit and vegetables for all prisoners in the Territory should be accommodated. You have the temperate climate of Alice Springs - not always temperate, but a drier climate - a not so humid climate in Katherine and a tropical climate in the Darwin region. There is an opportunity to supply much fruit and vegetables and create employment.
I visited a prison in Western Australia when I toured with Ken Middlebrook and it was great to see. One place had a dairy, the other had an abattoir and supplied meat for all the prisons in Western Australia. There is the opportunity, even with the new prison, to run some cattle. You can do that in Katherine and also at the new Darwin prison.
Work camps have been a pet of mine for a long time. I visited the Wyndham work camp a long time ago and thought what a great idea. I also visited one in the wheat belt on the road to Kalgoorlie. It showed how great and how beneficial work camps can be to the communities. I thought about going to the meeting at Adelaide River recently to show some support and say to people in Adelaide River, if they are concerned about work camps - the one in Adelaide River is meant to be a temporary work camp - if they have the opportunity to go to Wyndham they could visit the work camp and see all the great work prisoners do.
They need to be expanded and I am keen to know what the government’s program will be. Technically, the previous government had one for Katherine which was to be built in conjunction with the prison farm. The member for Nhulunbuy mentioned one at Nhulunbuy. There is also great opportunity to have mobile work camps similar to those in Western Australia. They take the toilets, showers and a kitchen with them and people live out bush.
Considering the issues we have in national parks and such places, there are opportunities for people to work, whether it is controlling noxious weeds, building paths, repairing fences, cleaning up signs or rehabilitating facilities in the parks. There is plenty of opportunity and that is the way we should go.
The government talks about boot camps. That it is the wrong name. We did not call Wildman River a boot camp; we called it a youth camp, if anything. The idea of a boot camp - climbing up a vertical mountain in blistering hot weather with shorts, shirts, and a flimsy pair of runners toughens people up. You want something more considered and you may be doing that. There are opportunities, with such a big pastoral industry in the Northern Territory, that some youth work camps could be on stations where people learn skills, get some education, and have time under the stars to clear their heads and think about what they want to do in life.
It is not about trying to brutalise people into being good, it is giving people a chance to think about their future. Hopefully, the so-called boot camp should - I would rather call them youth camps - have a slightly different focus than we see on television.
I do not know how this will pan out. There will be a big cost to this because people have to get up to go to work. You have to find jobs for people. To some extent that will be limited if they are not able to work outside the prison - there are only so many people. We have to develop more industries.
I will give you an example. Muswellbrook prison farm - Ken Middlebrook will tell you about it because he helped set it up – repaired Education department furniture. Schools sent their desks and chairs to this workshop. Those chairs and tables were stripped down, cleaned up, brought back to pretty well new then sold back to schools at half the price. Those people were learning about accounting and business practice because they had to have inventories, invoices, receipts etcetera. They also learnt painting skills, repairing, putting Laminex tops on - all those things. They learnt different skills in prison.
Another interesting place I visited was Port Phillip Prison which, in some ways, is very similar in design to the prison at Howard Springs. Their prisoners were learning to make T-shirts. They were not any T-shirts; they were quite skilled in producing good quality shirts with good quality motifs. In fact, Virgin Airways bought a large number of shirts and were backing them. A transport company in Melbourne was also backing them. They were learning computer skills and phone and Internet purchases. These prisoners were in for fairly serious crimes. Companies such as Virgin Airways guaranteed to buy X number of T-shirts from them and the transport company - I cannot say it was Fox; I am not sure which one it was - guaranteed if those prisoners wanted a job they would get one.
Your statement today, minister, is great. The detail is something to work out as you go along. There is much land at the new prison farm which could be developed for industry. There is great potential for developing more industries. I totally agree, minister, if we can give work to people – the statement is very philosophical; I do not get as philosophical - work is good for the soul, the dignity of the human being, and it is really important we do this. The hardest part will be when they leave prison.
The member for Fong Lim said, ‘Have a job’. If you go to Yuendumu and there is no job, that is a problem ...
Mr Tollner: Give them jobs in Yuendumu? They have been given jobs where the jobs are, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Hang on. If you go home and there is no job - let me finish. The other side of the equation - minister, you have said the same thing – is we have to get rid of welfare. If someone returns to Yuendumu the council can give them a job. Why? Because the federal government decided to churn things around and give the welfare money to the council to top it up. We did it on Bathurst Island. That was years ago but we employed everybody. We employed them all through the council and found jobs for them.
The danger is you will send people back to a place where there is no job and they go back on welfare and get into trouble. It is not as simple as saying there will be jobs for people; there might not be. They might not have the skills from a three-month stint to leave their community and get a mining job. What happens after people leave prison is a real issue which needs addressing. It is not easy.
It applies in other prisons. When I visited Muswellbrook, Glen Innes or Port Phillip, the issue was funding care for prisoners after they were released. A big issue in the Territory is how many prisoners have someone follow them up after release asking, ‘How are you going?’ How many people go to Yuendumu and check there? We fail to ensure they know someone still cares about them. It could be Yuendumu, Howard Springs or Fannie Bay, you need to follow-up; it is essential. Give them a job, but ensure we do not finish when they leave prison because that is where we fail.
The bigger picture is there will be alcohol and a lack of employment and education. I am unsure what the government’s policies will be. A good policy would be to try to turn things around. It will not fix things, but it is an important tool in giving people a leg up in life.
Minister, I congratulate you on the statement. I do not agree with everything you said. You had a shot at the new prison saying it was an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps I could invite you to a PAC meeting which is looking at that at the moment. I am sure the PAC would love to hear your reasons for it being an unmitigated disaster.
It is a big new prison and its original cost was higher than now. Any new prison, such as Port Phillip Prison, is not cheap because they require highly-sensitive electronic equipment. They are designed to be managed efficiently and it is not a case of just bricks and mortar. The company building it specialises in prisons. Yes, it is a lot of money but some of the criticism of the prison, true or not - the PAC is looking at it at the moment and getting detailed information. I cannot tell you any more than that. We should hold off criticism until the PAC completes its report which will have the details and documentation we need to make that decision.
Madam Speaker, regardless of that, I thank the minister for his statement today. We can talk more about prisons, but I appreciate this statement and thank you for bringing it to parliament.
Mr TOLLNER (Health): Madam Speaker, first, well done to our Attorney-General. He makes us on this side of the Chamber very proud because of the wonderful work he has done.
It has been interesting listening to the last few speakers. The member for Nelson was quite interesting to listen to. He cannot understand why the new prison is an unmitigated disaster. To me, it is self-explanatory: $60m per year before we have put one warden or one prisoner in it. If that is not an unmitigated disaster I do not know what is. The member for Nelson said, ‘Prisons these days cost a fortune - very expensive things’. Tell Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona that prisons have to cost a fortune. Sheriff Joe knows how to deal with prisoners. He gets them working and does not spend much money on fancy buildings and five-star resort style accommodation. In Arizona, Sheriff Joe gets results and has people working from day 1. He has become world famous for his tactics and strategies in dealing with prisoners. Many places around the world, particularly Australia, could take a leaf out of Sheriff Joe’s book. I am not telling the Minister for Correctional Services how to do his job, but it would be worthwhile looking seriously at some of the things Sheriff Joe does in Arizona and see if they might have application in the Northern Territory.
It was interesting listening to the member for Nhulunbuy. She seemed to say everything good must cost a lot of money because ...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: She seems to see hairs all over this because there is a lack of money going into the program. It is not costing much money, therefore it cannot be very good. This is the Labor way. During the last term I spent in this House, the former government’s measure of success was how much money it spent on programs. We were constantly told how much it was pouring into health, education, prisons and, at the end of the day, the poor government that wins office has to deal with those problems. Now the opposition is screaming blue murder because we do not keep the profligate spending going because we are not like drunken sailors throwing largesse everywhere. The new government recognises it has to do things differently. We cannot live beyond our means and have to come up with new ideas.
The program outlined in the minister’s statement is a fantastic example of how we can look at things in a different way. It is not complicated or difficult; it is very straightforward. The member for Nhulunbuy said he copied a Labor idea. I am sure he copied this idea from somewhere. I have not seen it in too many other places but if it was Labor’s idea why did they not do it? Actions speak louder than words. It is always easy to say, ‘We were going to do that,’ or ‘That was always in our plans’. If it was always in your plans, why did you not do it?
You cannot find much wrong with it so it had to be your idea. Why did you not commit to a program of trying to get prisoners into work? I have been to several sites where prisoners are working and they fit into the workforce well. They are working like Trojans and are valued by employers, their work colleagues, and are fitting into a social group of people at work. It is amazing to see how well the program is working. Someone told me that works well when you have low unemployment, but in times of high unemployment, such as with Labor governments, these things do not necessarily work because there is a large workforce and employers can pick and choose. Perhaps it is fortunate we have a low unemployment rate because it gives us an opportunity to help people.
I concur with the minister, it has been my long-held belief that the greatest form of welfare, rehabilitation, correction and salvation for people going off the rails is a job. It is the only thing you can do; to encourage people to get up in the morning and make breakfast, go to work, come home at night fagged out, dying to lie down and sleep, cook a meal - take personal responsibility.
For some reason the member for Nhulunbuy has a problem with the concept of personal responsibility. She said the minister’s ideas focus on the individual and what about the family? Hopefully, the entire family is not in gaol.
What about the family when a person is in gaol? One of the things courts take into account when sentencing people to gaol is the impact it will have on families. A prisoner coming out of a gaol with a job is the best thing a family could hope for, particularly if the person has only been in there for say three months. For three months they have been getting up at the crack of dawn, cleaning themselves up, having a wash, a bite to eat, getting to the job site and doing a hard day’s work and coming back to bed plum tuckered out and content. Do that for three months and all of a sudden you develop a work ethic! What a dreadful thing it would be if families had their loved one coming out of prison with a work ethic. You wonder why the member for Nhulunbuy complains about this program.
The member for Nelson said, ‘Why not get them jobs in their communities?’ In many communities there are no jobs. I have looked at job creation programs in remote communities for a long time and most are government creating work - an excuse to pay someone money to turn up and do something. Governments in this country have not really bitten the bullet in remote Indigenous communities and encouraged private enterprise to create opportunities for employment. Oddly enough, people have to move somewhere if they want a job.
The town I grew up in, Baralaba, country Queensland, 60 years ago was a thriving metropolis. It was a coal mining town with much activity and thousands of people. There would not be 100 people in that town today. It is practically a ghost town and there are towns all over Australia - I could name 20 off the top of my head - that once were thriving metropolises but are now small because the mine or some industry has shut down, the town closes and people move. People move to get work because when they work they can feed their families and have some self-esteem and self-worth. It also makes your existence on this planet worthwhile when you feel you are contributing - not just looking after yourself but doing your bit for society and the community in which you live. That is what this program is about.
I congratulate the minister for coming up with this so quickly into government. We are only six months in and are at the end of a trial program which seems to be working. I was stunned at how well it is working. It is getting out to Wickham Point and into parts of Berrimah where people are actively working, and seeing it in operation is amazing. I encourage members on the other side who have not had the chance to see the program in action to look at it. Even the former Corrections minister might be surprised at the success of this program.
The best form of welfare, salvation, getting people off drugs or alcohol is to give them some meaning in life and get them working. As Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy, I am happy to inform the Chamber that the program introduced by the Minister for Correctional Services is similar to the way I see some of our alcohol rehabilitation programs working.
I understand some people’s brains are so addled and too far gone from alcohol abuse to ever contemplate permanent employment. However, many people simply need a break from the grog to clear their mind, do some work to develop a work ethic, and be given a little help and guidance. There is no doubt many people can also be put into paid employment. It will probably be the key performance indicator for any deliverer of rehabilitation services to meet. Ultimately, I want to see providers of rehabilitation service focused on getting patients into employment. The key to any rehabilitation program - whether it is drug, alcohol, or other substance abuse - has to be an element of work.
I am not interested in fluffy feel-good programs that talk about wellbeing. I am more interested in serious programs which try to get people work-ready and into paid employment. The best form of rehabilitation is a job, which goes without saying. It also goes without saying there has to be some assistance with transition from prison into the community. It is far easier to provide assistance when somebody has a job. Trying to put somebody back into the community with no hope of employment and unable to care for their individual needs is a difficult process. In some cases, you throw your hands up and wonder why you do it knowing full well they will quickly come back into contact with the criminal justice system or abuse alcohol or drugs.
I used to be alarmed at the way prisoners were treated. They were let out of Berrimah prison, given a cheque and sent on their way. The closest place they could cash that cheque was the local bottle shop. Of course, that - and any business – will not cash cheques unless there is a purchase. It was saddening to see the spin dryer – almost - in operation.
Some programs have continued over the years. OARS, a wonderful program, was run by a former prisoner who had problems rehabilitating some of his own practices. He scooted off with a lot of money. It was sad to see that program die. Some very well-meaning people have attempted to make it easier for prisoners to reintegrate into the community.
These programs do not have to cost much money. It is a shame the prison is being built where it is. I often laugh thinking about the member for Nelson. He is now the greatest supporter of this white elephant sitting in his electorate. He went to the 2008 election promising there would not be a new prison saying we did not need one.
Oddly enough, he also went to that election committing to open speed limits and a range of other things. He did not want the INPEX workers camp in his electorate. He rolled over on many things - the price of being kingmaker. Practically everything he asked for he did not get, which stumped me. People would say, ‘If we want government to do anything we better talk to Gerry’. Gerry asked for a few things, and I cannot think of a single thing he asked for and received, such as the swimming pool. He got an extra secretary and his council of love - a great deal of good that did! That is pretty well it; the secretary and the council of love. I recall there was even a hole in the ground for the swimming pool.
That was one of the key commitments he made, and he wanted Howard Springs Reserve cleaned up. That looks like a mad dictator’s scorched earth policy principle now. It is nothing like it used to be; it used to be a beautiful waterhole where you could swim and kick back with a barbecue. Half the trees are gone and there are no fish now. He blames it on pigs or bats. For whatever reason, they had to send bulldozers which ruined the place.
They seem to like him in Howard Springs. Perhaps they want a prison in their back yard, a 3500-person workers camp and a range of other things. I am sure they wanted speed limits. Regardless, Gerry got his way and became kingmaker.
However, it costs $60m a year before one prisoner or one prison warden steps foot into it. You wonder what we could do with $60m a year – an enormous array of things. Minister, how many work camps could we run with $60m a year? How many people could we get into employment with $60m a year to spend on work camps? We would empty our prisons pretty quickly and have one of the most productive populations in the developed world with $60m a year to spend on helping people into jobs. However, the former government decided it wanted a Taj Mahal, a great five-star hotel for prisoners in the member for Nelson’s back yard and the new government is lumped with it.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on a fine effort. I am sorry to say he has beaten me to the mark. I am keen to see something similar in the area of alcohol rehabilitation. However, good on him, he gets things done.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it is great to see the member for Fong Lim out of the back rooms and back in the saddle on the floor of parliament. We enjoy his contributions.
I support the minister’s statement, it is great. In contrast to marking Adrian Renzi down last night on his pathetic literary contribution, minister, you receive a distinction because you were able to put the philosophical argument into the statement. The metaphorical images you created were sensational. It was a great piece of work. It is important, though, to look at some aspects you may be able to improve on.
Berrimah prison is an albatross around your neck. You know that because the only way you will achieve what you have set out to - I congratulate you - is to take Northern Territory Correctional Services with you. They need the new multiclassification Correctional Services facility being built under the new way of doing business - the public/private partnership - where the deal is design, construct and maintain for 30 years. It is like buying a house for prisoners. It is not that easy, member for Fong Lim, because when you talk to Correctional Services, there are some seriously bad guys in there. It is not all about work camps; there are some bad guys. In that precinct you have a mental health forensic unit, a supported accommodation unit for prisoners transitioning into work, a visiting elders centre and a multiclassification Correctional Services facility.
The new prison will do the minister proud, not only because it will take the Correctional Services team with him, it will be the purpose-built infrastructure he needs to deliver his program. As the minister outlined in the statement, to move people around, maximise efficiencies and reduce costs you need purpose-built infrastructure, let alone the Labor fiscal stimulus strategy that kept the Territory alive and is delivering the jobs and social infrastructure to boot. Minister, you are lucky; you are going with it.
The other bonus - the jewel in the crown - is when you decommission Berrimah prison, development of that area will be spectacular. You will not be delivering 2000 affordable double container specials out there; you will have premier land to develop in Darwin, the jewel in the crown of the central peninsula area. You have two bangs for your buck there. The member for Fong Lim knows. He understands a good deal when he sees it and that will be another feather in the cap of whichever government is able to deliver. We will let the people decide that.
That is the Doug Owston multiclassification Correctional Facility and, minister, you are lucky to have that.
We spoke about the Barkly Work Camp and the member for Fong Lim said it all happened in the last five months. It is great to see it is still rolling out and I am not bitter.
Member for Stuart, you said Labor has done nothing for Aboriginal people. In Correctional Services alone we employed world best practice to address the most disadvantaged people in our community and were driving that forward. You took it off me and I am sad about that because I had another four-year plan where we were going to really turn it around. You have a good minister in charge now and we will be watching closely to see what happens under that watch.
The Barkly Work Camp is delivering jobs. It is a great concept and I will relay a story. During the election campaign I was grabbing fuel and a guy beat me to the servo every morning: a prisoner who rode his bike from the Barkly Work Camp to the BP service station. He was in the back room, came out in the Cheeky Dog uniform and was on the vacuum cleaner every morning at 5.55 am; I presume he started at 6 am. That is not a bad outcome, minister, and you are rolling that out so good on you.
I blew a couple of tyres on the Sandover Highway and had to do a mercy dash to Tennant Creek. Of the three prisoners who worked on the Toyota, two were sentenced prisoners and one was released and working full-time. That is a fantastic outcome. I could talk about the prisoners who work at the police station, the shire, the hospital and the culture centre. Minister, I have been talking to people around Tennant and you have to get them to Battery Hill. The Battery Hill Mining Centre represents a perfect opportunity. Your government ripped the guts out of it and the member for Greatorex has slashed and burnt both Nyinkka Nyunyu and the Battery Hill Mining Centre in Tennant Creek. You can save Battery Hill Mining Centre and have the best training facility right next door to the work camp. I will talk to you more about that and lobby strongly because we were doing that work. Unfortunately, the Tennant Creek Foundation has gone and the community is working hard to put together the Battery Hill Mining Centre. Corrections can be the best partner they ever had.
I will talk about the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education and the steel rolling mill. I am sure Foxy would be interested in it because he can incorporate that into his construction endeavours. The steel rolling mill is a fantastic project delivering real certification, training and outcomes. I will tell the minister a story about that. When we had some down time and were chasing new contracts, one of the lecturers had an interest in the arts so we started to explore that. They have made some of the best sculptures you will see in your life. Paul, I hope you are still there because what you were doing was sensational.
We duplicated that in the Alice Springs Correctional Centre and moved the art section into the industry section so artists could access industry skills: oxyacetylene welding and building skills, White Card construction and Certificate II and III in Construction accredited training. On one of my visits the prison officers were so proud to show me the bushfire fighting trailers they were building. It was a great project. I said, ‘How much would that trailer cost?’ and a prison officer was proud to tell me on the market today a basic trailer without firefighting gear would be worth about $1500. I said, ‘That is sensational’. The work was incredible.
The guys who made the 4 m crocodile could sell it for $50 000. I encouraged them to enter it into the NATSIA - the member for Nhulunbuy mentioned the Behind the Wire art exhibition. There are a few challenges, minister, you will find entering into NATSIA from a custodial environment, but do not leave it; revisit it because the trailer and the industry program were sensational. These guys can leave prison and command hundreds of thousands of dollars for their sculpture and become world-renowned artists because the talent is there. I hope to see the brolgas, the shark and the crocodile again. I look forward to what comes out of that workshop.
In relation to jobs, member for Fong Lim, you might be interested in the shed you noticed at East Point called The Defence of Darwin Experience and the new interpretive element of the Darwin Military Museum, that high-tech purpose-built, world-renowned Defence of Darwin Experience. TSC, the company that built it, was a specialist in the field. The other company was Convergence, which did the light and sound show. You had to go for specialists, not everybody could build that shed. I remember your contribution well.
We told them we wanted workers. We were doing what the minister is doing now, and crews of six guys were visiting that site every day from the start to the end of the project. Every day there were minimum crews of six guys, and some weeks more. The first time I visited four prisoners were tying steel, two prisoners were finishing off footings trenches and one prisoner was on a theodolite. The guys at TSC groomed them, mentored them and liked them. Minister, you are dead right when you talk about normalising the environment so these people get to talk about interesting and motivational things.
I have a story to share with you, member for Fong Lim. There was a big fellow, a giant, working hard; I was watching them sweating. Lunchtime came and they all walked off. I started freaking out because I thought, ‘What is going on, the boys are leaving?’ ‘No’ said the prison officer, ‘It is okay, minister, relax, they are just going to get lunch’, because the company provided lunch. Around the corner came the big fellow with two big buckets of wedges, several spring rolls, some dim sims and I said, ‘Hey, excuse me sir, that is not a very healthy lunch for a construction worker’. He looked at me in fear and said, ‘Please, sir, no, let me eat it. They only give us sandwiches back at Berrimah’.
That was normalising. That guy worked on the project and was the first person to get a full-time job with TCS. They were taking him back to Townsville to work on the extension to the casino. The gentleman I met that day begged me to let him eat fast food because all he was fed at Berrimah was sandwiches.
Minister, the classification system will be another challenge. I looked at that closely and I am sure you have seen it in motion. The manual is one thing, but the work in progress is another. You have the intellect to understand this. You have prisoners with English as a second language, with low education levels, from low socioeconomic status, prisoners with disadvantage and disabilities.
One innovation during my time with Corrections was amplification for hearing. They were interviewing prisoners with the team and talking about classification. They realised there could be a problem with hearing. If you understand Indigenous health and hearing you will know what I mean. Adults were not hearing properly, not providing the right responses, and it was difficult to participate in the reclassification exercise.
I was a bit of a bully and pushed Corrections. I had to back off, but I had been working with delinquents in the field for about five years before working with Corrections. I was pushing much of the stuff I was able to do on my own back home. The big system won out in the end, but we levelled out together and achieved much. I really enjoyed my time. Relish your opportunity. I wish you the best of luck.
With the classification system, I overstepped the mark on one visit because I had more questions than the psychologists, the classification officers, and the prison officers about engaging the prisoner in a level I understood. I overstepped it in the formal exercise. I pulled back because I knew I was out of order. I re-engaged that prisoner in the yard and saw much more of him than came through in the classification exercise. I said to him, ‘You have to start communicating with these people because they want to help you and are the key to you moving through the system where you will progress and fast-track people into the program you have outlined in the statement’.
The Northern Territory Prison Officers Association is going to be critical of this because it is red hot on classification, for good reason. Understanding police and justice, you will be able to work with them. They will come on board and allow some movement in that very rigid system ...
Mr Elferink: They are already starting to signal this.
Mr McCARTHY: That is great to hear. That will be an important area to get people moving through so they get into a space where they are not a threat to anybody, have proven their worth, and have signed the contract to say they want to move on and do what the member for Fong Lim is talking about.
Work parties are great and I congratulate you on extending them. Once again, having worked with delinquents in railway sidings yards, gravel pits, on locos, in rodeo grounds and showgrounds, it was always a challenge. I hope I did not upset Corrections, but I articulated several times there was always a challenge with the gang - the bloke on the shovel and the four watching him. It always got me with the boys so I would drive them really hard to ensure I had four shovels, or two shovels and the other two had something else to do. On the work party, you always had a couple of guys doing intense work and others watching.
The classification system prevented me from moving the guys standing around watching into other employment because I did not have the supervision or they did not have the yellow T-shirt which meant they could go out on their own.
One project really maximised the hit and we were proud of it. When you drive along Tiger Brennan Drive I want you to notice two things. One, the landscaping is a ‘dry land’ project which means there is basic preparation of the verges, banks and road reserves and native species are encouraged to return. When the native species returned they were being choked out by weeds. There was no way a commercial operator could have scoped that work without it costing the government a small fortune because it was almost individual work to cut weeds and create mulch around the emerging native species. Corrections got the job.
On the Tiger Brennan Drive project everybody was at work - all hands on deck. It was not just about cutting weeds, it was about real work in a real work environment. There was traffic management, maintenance of machinery, daily schedules and rosters and the challenges around human resource management and work relations. It delivered every aspect of a real job. When I drive along Tiger Brennan Drive in and out of this beautiful city and see the emerging canopy of native species, I remember it was done by prisoners from Berrimah under the guidance and mentoring of the work party team. I will not mention any individual prison officer, but there were several crackers I learnt much from - great guys - and one special person drove that and challenged me regularly for resources in return for the great work done. It was a good example of working in real industry.
The transport and logistics industries at East Arm logistics precinct also offered many opportunities. That was around storehouses, heavy vehicles and transport, supply chains, and transport logistics. There were some golden opportunities there and they were very interested in what we were doing.
I received a copy of the letter from Toll, which the member for Nhulunbuy mentioned, relating to a powerful lobby coming your way, minister. In relation to their Second Step supported employment programs, Toll Group offers exactly what you want. They are the ones to do business with because they will open up many other opportunities. There is a wealth of opportunities at East Arm.
I have one conspiracy. In Question Time today the two graduates you mentioned - one has graduated, one is about to - were on the Second Step program and that is wonderful. It is great to think about what you were saying and realise, ‘Hang on, I remember that project’. It has obviously grown wings. Congratulations, minister, because that industry sector has a real employment need and I am glad you are onto it.
Madam Speaker, the statement is good and helps the most disadvantaged people in our community.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement. The philosophy of making prisoners work as part of their rehabilitation is one I have supported for many years. There are many jobs on the list of councils and community organisations not being done. Some have never been budgeted for, and this scheme offers real benefits to the community without taking work away from full-time workers.
The reason I wanted to speak about this tonight is because Adelaide River is currently looking at a work program for prisoners. I would like to look at this from a community point of view as opposed to the prisoner side. Coomalie Council Shire President, Andrew Turner, addressed a meeting in Adelaide River on 7 February. Some of the advantages of this program for a community he mentioned were grants. Sources of incomes for councils were drying up so many of the jobs that drop off the end of the work list each year are ones prisoners could pick up.
Trevor Horman spends much time looking after the railway museum at Adelaide River. He has been using prisoners on a daily basis to do much of the work. He says it has enabled many restorations to proceed because the prisoners are cleaning up the railway and so forth.
Another thing coming from the meeting was the City of Darwin has been using labour from the prison for a number of years and estimates it saves ratepayers about $1m a year in work being done. They are some of the things raised by Andrew Turner.
The Commissioner for Corrections, Ken Middlebrook, said it was not the intention to set up a prison farm in Adelaide River; it was to be a temporary camp to undertake specific tasks. He also pointed out that Correctional Services already has between 15 and 30 prisoners going out unaccompanied on a daily basis. The minister also mentioned this. The people selected have to go through an intensive classification period. There are no second chances so if they play up they are sent back.
Something else pointed out at the meeting was one of the big pluses for prisoners in work camps, apart from learning skills, is developing a work ethic, feeling they are part of the community and having a sense of achievement. The only interaction with the community in Adelaide River would be in the work camp itself.
The camp is planned to run from Monday to Friday and would be there for about three months. Some of the work Coomalie CEO Lee Farrell suggested was that Adelaide River oval needed levelling and the sprinklers upgrading. They want to clean up Adelaide River town sites and entrances prior to the Bombing of Darwin and Anzac Day events. For those who do not know, this is the 70th anniversary of the last bombs dropped on Australian soil: 13 November at Adelaide River so put that in your diary.
They also want playground equipment erected, recycling of cans and bottles, and picking up recycled materials. Adelaide River has a landfill tip on the outskirts of town.
There is also work at Adelaide River showground and racetrack, mowing council areas not under contract, working on museum projects at Adelaide River and Batchelor, tree lopping and cutting off roots in ovals and parks, erection of white posts, cleaning of culverts on rural roads, cleaning of town streets and stumps, mowing of pensioners’ lawns, cleaning up vacant blocks, cleaning up around rubbish tip sites, assisting in the development of council waste sites, Keep Australia Beautiful Council town cleanup, painting and repairing the old railway bridges in Adelaide River and any other projects they can find in the three months. They saw it as a big bonus.
Some people had concerns but not in regard to the benefit of the workers being there. Their initial concerns were the workers being placed in the town. Subsequently, a second meeting was held last Tuesday night which I also attended. There were probably 20 people at that meeting. The first meeting had 40 to 50 people from Adelaide River. Adelaide River township has a population of around 200 so about one-quarter of the people attended the meeting. The meeting on Tuesday night had about 20 people and everyone was enthusiastic about this. Two people were concerned about the prisoners being stationed in the middle of the town.
Having heard some of the classification systems, I will talk to the minister then reassure these people I do not see a problem having prisoners living in the town and that the benefits will be astronomical.
Madam Speaker, as the meeting at Adelaide River happened this week, I wanted to add to the minister’s statement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the statement by the Minister for Correctional Services titled Sentenced to a Job. It defines a trial program which is working and will be rolled out in future and be highly successful.
It has been heartening to hear the contributions from everybody in the House tonight. The contributions from the other side of the House have not been debased by the usual vitriol and venom and I am pleased. While listening to the member for Fong Lim talk about our mate the sheriff in Arizona, I formed a mental picture of sheriff Tollner doing the same thing. I can imagine him with a bunch of prisoners in pink overalls working on the side of the road. Anyway, I digress.
Listening to what has been said tonight, I find myself harking back to the days when I was a member of the police force. I joined the police in 1986 and had the great privilege, at the end of my training period in 1986, to move to Maranboy. For those who do not now know where that is, 50 km south of Katherine on the Stuart Highway turn left towards Gove and the police station is 19 km in. It was a two-man police station and we looked after Barunga, Beswick, Bulman and some other smaller communities around the southwestern corner of Arnhem Land and, of course, the cattle properties and what not.
I was privileged to work there because I was able to form a great number of friendships with the local Aboriginal people. I came to know them and, as best as I could, understand them and their culture. Importantly, I took a real interest in what was going on in the community. There are still lessons in that for police officers across the Territory about being involved in the community in which they work and serve.
During that time, and ensuing years in the police force, I got to see the very best and very worst side of life. A big part of the worst side was the rate at which Indigenous people were incarcerated, which was disturbing. Even more disturbing were two things: the fact the recidivism rate was extremely high and remains so today, and when people came out of prison they went back to the same life they left when heading to detention centres or prisons. I always thought there must be a better way forward for anyone entering the criminal justice system.
I want to fast forward a number of years to when I was in Alice Springs and the people I met there, many of them Indigenous, who had been in the prison system. I am thinking about a particular fellow who I met in the Todd River one day. I have an interest in Aboriginal art and came across this fellow with his family. He had a couple of most stunning paintings for sale so I had a yarn with him. They were not the traditional dot paintings you expect from Central Australia, but more contemporary art. One of the paintings I bought, which I am currently having framed - a job I have neglected for a number of years – is called Two Old Men, the Moon and the Stars. It is a painting of two old Aboriginal men with grey flowing beards looking up at the stars. It is a remarkable piece of artwork. When it is completed I will hang it in my office upstairs.
The point I want to make goes to what is written on the back of that painting. Some in this House will know every prisoner who enters the criminal justice system in the Northern Territory is assigned an IJIS number - Integrated Justice Information System. These two beautiful art pieces were signed on the back by this fellow. I will not name him in this House; he has not given me authority to. Underneath his name he also wrote his IJIS number. It was a poignant moment when I saw that and realised what it was. That told me this fellow, probably in his mid- to late-20s, was so firmly entrenched in the criminal justice system he identified not only by his name, but also by his IJIS number. I find it, even today, very moving that a person becomes so firmly a part of the prison system that they use their IJIS number to identify themselves. I have never forgotten that.
I think about all the people I have dealt with, putting them into the criminal justice system, doing my job as a policemen, and the hopelessness of so many people where incarceration becomes part of the culture. That is really sad. Years ago I was told the people of Groote Eylandt were not accepted as initiated until they had been to prison. How sad is that? Going into the ‘big house’ was a rite of passage. That, in itself, is bad enough, but for them to come out and have no hope, basically dumped on the street - I have seen that happen many times.
In more recent times in Katherine, I remember standing at the Post Office one afternoon talking to local people; the Post Office in Katherine is a great place to catch up with people. I saw an Indigenous fellow run across the road from the direction of the Katherine Hotel chasing another fellow. He chased him through cars waiting at the traffic lights and parked cars in front of the Post Office.
I ended up calling the police because this guy was obviously very intoxicated and I was fearful for the safety of the other chap. While police were on the way, this fellow calmed down. The other one took off; he was okay. I kept an eye on this fellow for the police in case he tried to do a runner. The police arrived and he was spoken to and taken into custody. Police said he was worried and upset because he had just come out of prison that day. He arrived in Katherine, was highly intoxicated, and was chasing the other bloke because he thought he had slept with his wife.
Even in contemporary times - that was less than 12 months ago - the system allows people to be dumped on the street with nothing and go back to the life they had before. Is it any wonder recidivism rates in the Northern Territory are so high?
It is heartening to read the minister’s statement because it puts into words what is happening in the prison system in the Northern Territory now. It has to be a better way.
Before being re-elected in August last year I spent time as shadow minister for Corrections. I had the opportunity to visit the Darwin Correctional Centre, Alice Springs gaol and the Barkly Work Camp. Credit where credit is due - I like to do that as people know - the Barkly Work Camp is a pretty impressive place set up under the former government. The main street and the median strip in Tennant Creek looked fine. This was largely as a result of the work being done by prisoners from the Barkly Work Camp: a good thing.
I toured Berrimah and Alice Springs and was escorted around and made aware of what was going on. I was told some work programs were happening inside the prison in metal work etcetera. One prisoner sentenced for murder not so long ago was building trailers. That was a good thing too.
However, I noticed an inordinate number of prisoners in both institutions were idle. As we walked around I was briefed about a work program, nonetheless, it struck me it was not enough. It was not a serious attempt to address the chronic problem in our society of recidivism and finding an opportunity for prisoners, when they leave prison, to enter into a better life. By ‘a better life’, I mean a job.
The member for Fong Lim is right; the best form of welfare, the best form of rehabilitation, is a job. It gives you pride, self-esteem and something to get up for every morning. Lord knows, people who do not have a job and drink all day do not have much to get up for.
Thinking about how that program was rolling out previously, I was a little disheartened. I am not criticising the people working in the prisons because that is as a result of government policy settings; the priority placed around those programs by government and the level of resources allocated to it.
As I read through the minister’s statement I note the enthusiasm with which he approached not only the statement - he wrote this himself because it is in ‘elf speak’. The minister’s enthusiasm is infectious. He has a way of encouraging people in the Corrections system - both staff and, through them, the prisoners - to get involved in these worthwhile activities so people have hope of a better life after leaving prison.
In thinking about how this might affect my electorate, I look forward to seeing prison work gangs in Katherine. It has been done in the past and the pensioners who have their lawns mown in Darwin - for every one there is one in Katherine who would love to have their lawn mown…
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection saying ‘we are getting there’. I would appreciate that. Beyond that, many other things can be done.
One of the great things about my part of the world is our beautiful Nitmiluk National Park and the gorge associated with it. It is traditional land of the Jawoyn people and a national park in the Northern Territory’s care. Resources in departments often restrict our ability to improve infrastructure and build the capacity for more people to use the park. Prisoners in groups could come into Nitmiluk National Park and camp for a week. What a wonderful thing for Aboriginal people to be in the bush, camp, and work at the same time. I can see them working on the pathways adorning the national park and, at the same time, do a good day’s work. At lunchtime they could go for a swim in the river then continue working through the afternoon, collect some bush tucker - there is plenty of it in the national park - have another swim and sleep under the stars at night. What a way to bring Aboriginal people back to the bush and the bush back to Aboriginal people! There is a very strong relationship between Aboriginal people and the land, including the bush, and it would be great to have that opportunity available to prisoners, particularly if they hail from my part of the country.
This visionary statement is a representation of what the minister is currently doing. It is about breaking the cycle of offending, recidivism and giving prisoners a reason for being. We all need a reason for being. If this program continues with the success it has enjoyed thus far and is rolled out further, it is going to be a watershed for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and the entire prison system.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement from the minister and am pleased he has informed the House, and the people of the Northern Territory, about the wonderful things he is doing. I wish not only the minister luck and success with this, but also the people involved. As I have said to people in my department, this is not about me as minister, minister Elferink, the department, the gaol, or about the buildings; it is about the people of the Northern Territory. If this program makes a difference for so many Aboriginal people I welcome it as a great thing.
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine for overstating it as visionary. It is not visionary; it is intuitively self-evident. People are saying you have to explore this in other ways, there are options to be explored etcetera Yes, that is all true, but the member for Fong Lim was right on the money. The best form of welfare is a bloke with a job. I wish I had put that in the ministerial statement.
I understand the enthusiasm of the former minister and, as I acknowledged in my statement, the Labor Party had started doing this. The only thing I can say – this is not a criticism of the member for Nhulunbuy, she obviously cares about the families and all the other things involved and too right. However, as Minister for Correctional Services I cannot fix people’s families, government cannot fix people’s families, and government cannot fix people.
Comment was made by the member for Nhulunbuy about me being hands on and that is true. Perhaps I am a little hyperactive in the way I do this job, but I care about the people of the Northern Territory and see this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a difference. The reason I entered politics was to make a difference. The reason I become involved in this was to make a difference, the opportunity has presented itself and that is what I would like to do. This is not a complex program and people seem genuinely surprised when I said I picked up the phone and started ringing employers. That is precisely what I did.
By the way, while sitting in the mall speaking to people I got some more, and I got two at Parap markets a few weeks ago. I grabbed their business cards and went to my ministerial officer, Jo Sangster, who works her behind off on this stuff, ‘There’s another one, go ring, go organise it’, which is why we went from 18 to 30; I got 12 very quickly in a month. The thing that has knocked my socks off - I am not surprised the prisoners are engaging with it because it beats the boredom of sitting in gaol and you get money in your pocket - is the enthusiasm with which business is embracing this. I expected to be receiving pushback in this area and have not found it at all. I have had several people say, ‘I would like to but it is not right for my work’.
I was explaining this to a firm that had no labouring jobs and the owner said they had a job for a person and understood that person to be serving time. I made a quick phone call, ‘What was that person’s classification?’ ‘They are on our list, they qualify’. A couple of days later it was organised. It does not have to be more complex than that. The cost of this to the taxpayer is zero.
I am unsure if the member for Nhulunbuy is being negative, but she noted we are charging board because we expect people to make a contribution. That is what the world is about. You make a contribution with your labour and you get money in. You consume, you push money out. That is how it works. As a result of that you get some dignity. It scares me how simple it is. I do not need a bureaucracy to organise it. I make a few phone calls and people seem genuinely surprised a minister from the Crown would get involved in one of his own policies. I do not believe ministers necessarily should be remote.
I tend to immerse myself in my ministries in a way which is surprising to people, but that is who I am and I will not make any apologies for that. I have the responsibility of first law officer of the Northern Territory, a responsibility thrust upon my shoulders to ensure the administration of justice in the Territory is running well, and I do not understand why people are genuinely surprised that I would ensure I know how the administration of justice works.
I spoke to the Solicitor-General about the McNamara case ruled on by Justice Barr in the Supreme Court, an issue for the administration of justice in the Northern Territory. I suspect I am the best informed Attorney-General in the area of apprehended bias in the history of the Northern Territory because, in the process of becoming involved in that matter, I read all the required authorities, cases, and associated material. Whilst I was, on paper, the senior law officer in the court, I was not going to pretend the QC sitting to my left was junior to me in any real or practical way. I advised Their Honours submissions were being made by my solicitor, the Solicitor-General, and were, accordingly, made. I got my head around all the issues in relation to that case. That makes me a better minister.
I told the legal fraternity I would be engaged and involved as Attorney-General and have done so. There is nothing unusual in this. Robert McClelland has done it and John Rau, the Labor Attorney-General in South Australia, is going to the Supreme Court this month. He has been to the High Court, as McClelland has. Many Attorneys-General have done this. It has raised a few eyebrows, but whether people like it or not I have undertaken all the requisite studies, passed all the required exams, done all that is necessary in the postgraduate environment to meet the expectations of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, and have been admitted to practice in that court. I could walk into that court as a practitioner if I so chose because I have all the requisite qualifications. I had it put to me by a journalist recently that I did not have all the requisite qualifications because people thought I only had a law degree. No, I have the GDLP as well and have been admitted to practice at the Bar of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.
I am not ashamed of what I do; it is just the style. People are surprised I ring businesses but in the space of a few weeks I had 18 jobs. In the space of a few more weeks it was up to 30. I am proud of that. However, I really enjoy what is going to come for those people. I do not want it to be complex. You get bureaucrats saying, ‘We have to look after the families, we have to do this and we have to make it a training program’. No, not in the first instance, just get them a job. These jobs start at work illiterate people can do. There are people working now who are functionally illiterate but are doing it anyway because we got them a job and there is an employer prepared to give them a break. Cost to the taxpayer - zip.
The employer pays full award wages, insurance - everything. These people are employees on a casual basis, and that is the exciting part. This is done with a handful of phone calls, a willing set of prison officers prepared to assist with the administration of this program, and we are seeing results from making a handful of phone calls - no expensive programs, no grant money, no plans of voluminous works. Everything is structured simply to get these guys a job and is not too complex. I love keeping it simple because it makes it so easy to do.
I am now, with the same level of hyperactivity, trying to expand the program to prisoners who successful qualify through the classification system. Some people will never get this far, others have a wonderful opportunity and I would like to give it to them. The opportunity to keep it simple should not be missed. We can continue rolling out these jobs.
One area I am particularly excited about is an employer – Foxy - I will name him because he does not mind, we have spoken about this. Foxy Robinson has started working with a new, unique product. Foxy is branching into another area. I will not talk too much about it because it is his intellectual property, but it is a good idea. I have seen the product and it will require labour to build it; it will require an industry. I have already spoken to the Commissioner for Corrections, Ken Middlebrook, and we are planning to roll it out. We are going to build - this is in reply to the member for Nelson - a new industry producing an entirely new product - not competing with anybody else - inside Berrimah prison. Guess what? It is likely those prisoners employed in the project will be paid award wages. If not, we will have to negotiate our way around it, but it is probably going to work that way.
I had one business ring me not long ago saying, ‘The steel rolling mill, you guys are using convict labour and competing directly with us’. ‘Would you like to employ a prisoner?’ Answer, ‘We use roughly the same equipment. Yes, if you have a trained person to do it’. All of a sudden another person has a job. I am not sure if that one worked, but it is very encouraging.
I have advised the department not to tell me the nonsense stuff. Do not tell me how many are Aboriginal, how many are women, how many are this, that or the other. This is about the people. They get the right classification and go out to do the job. I do not care if they are Aboriginal or not, illiterate or not, if they are girls or boys. I am not interested. The reason I know about some of them is I arranged jobs for them, but I am not interested in the peripheral nonsense. This is a very traditional way of welfare - prisoners have a job.
If people leave prison and want to return to their home communities that is their choice; you cannot stop a free person being free. I am quietly optimistic many people will remain in our towns and communities with their job and travel to communities to visit their families from time to time. If it works out that way that is good, not because I want to see people separated from their communities, but I want to see people keep their jobs. If enough people travel from communities into larger towns and back and forward, and if we can get enough people in remote communities with this attitude to work, over time something wonderful can be achieved.
I legitimately do not know what the future of this program is or how big it is going to get. It is as big as the number of prisoners who qualify through the appropriate classification system and the number of jobs available. If we can keep matching them we will keep advancing this program with a view to making people’s lives better. There are few ministers in the world - no ministers in this government - who have the opportunity granted to me because I have a captive audience to work with. This means the government, and Commissioner Middlebrook as head of Correctional Services, has a capacity to direct and guide which you cannot do in any other ministerial portfolio. Fortunately, we have a capacity to respond to an opportunity which has made itself available.
Madam Speaker, I do not care how much criticism I receive, I will continue making phone calls and giving a rat’s ass about what we can achieve as a government in this Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, tonight I wish to address an issue that was raised by the member for Barkly on Tuesday evening during his adjournment debate, and mentioned again in some debate yesterday. It is in relation to the provision of power tokens to a power token retailer who lived outside of Tennant Creek. The inquiry was in relation to where that power card retailer could source power cards in Tennant Creek given that the remaining PWC agency in Tennant Creek has been closed, at least for the time being.
I offer the member for Barkly an apology for not having responded to his e-mail sooner; I take full responsibility for that as the minister. The e-mail came into my office and clearly it should have been attended to. I take responsibility for that.
In answer to the question by the member for Barkly, I can advise the following arrangements have been made for the supply of tokens to the token agents in Tennant Creek, and, by extension, to those who come into Tennant Creek to pick them up. First, facsimile and e-mail orders have been diverted to Darwin and are cleared several times a day. Orders are made up and despatched as soon as practicable in accordance with the token agent contract. This is usually on the day of receipt; however, workload may lead to this being the next day. Token orders are despatched from Darwin by Australia Post via Express Post, deliveries usually take approximately three days to Tennant Creek, and agents have been requested to factor this in when making their orders.
Token orders are currently being tracked by Australia Post to monitors delivery times. It also monitors the size and frequency of token orders to minimise the risk of agents running out of tokens. For the member for Barkly’s information, your retailer, who I gather from your e-mail lives outside of Tennant Creek, can go through the same process and probably pick them up from the Tennant Creek Post Office but, should that not be suitable, perhaps he can take the opportunity to contact Power and Water to make alternative arrangements.
There is just one other matter I want to touch on in respect to this, and that is the way in which the member for Barkly broached this issue on Tuesday night. He was fair enough to read the e-mails he sent to my office, but what was quite beyond the pale, and certainly not a practice that is adopted by this House, was to name people who work in ministerial offices. The member for Barkly on Tuesday read out an e-mail he wrote, read a response that was provided to him which was basically acknowledging his e-mail, and then read into that the name of one of my staff members on the fifth floor.
We all know it is not kosher to name people in this House where they do not have an opportunity to respond. The member for Barkly owes the young lady who was named on that night an apology. When she was told about this the following morning she was distraught to think her name had been placed on the permanent Parliamentary Record in the Northern Territory simply because the member for Barkly thought he could do some political point scoring, or do something like that …
Mr McCarthy: Do not try your cheap politics, Willem.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Beg your pardon?
Mr McCarthy: It was a positive, read Hansard.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Was it?
Mr McCarthy: Yes, read it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Read what?
Mr McCarthy: The ‘thank you’ I said because I got a response; but nothing from you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on your interjection. I do not know why you had to name a staff member in my office. If you want to take me on, member for Barkly, you take me on all you like. Leave my staff members out of it.
I would never dream, nor would most people in this House, of naming staff members who work in your office. I take responsibility for what goes on in my office and I do not expect from you, or anybody else, to take on my staff members and name them in this House. You should be ashamed of yourself …
Mr McCarthy: Do not try that rubbish on.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: What a despicable man you are. How pathetic you are. To pick on …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I will try to go through the Chair; otherwise I am going to get really angry because the arrogant attitude being displayed by the member for Barkly is typical of what I expected. He said during his contribution to the debate on the ministerial statement tonight that he was ‘a bit of a bully’ in respect to his Corrections people when dealing with issues in the Barkly Work Camp. Well, really? So, you are a bully? There is self-admission the member for Barkly is a bully. What he has tried to do is bully my staff. He might have been able to get away with that with his Corrections staff and with his own staff on the fifth floor, who knows, but he will not get away with it with my staff. I expect an apology for naming my staff member in this House on Tuesday night and causing her so much upset and grief the following day. You are a despicable man.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept the challenge from the member for Katherine, and apologise to the ministerial assistant. I also say to the ministerial assistant, read the Hansard of my reply and the words of your minster, because your minister just tried cheap political point scoring to get it on the Hansard because he did not respond. He was not interested.
He was fishing in Chambers Bay, he was in Texas at a conference, but he did not respond to the closure of the Power and Water office in Tennant Creek.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have all comments directed through the Chair, please.
Mr McCARTHY: There is my apology.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I mention a noteworthy celebration in Tennant Creek which was the opening of the new police station on the main street by the Deputy Chief Minister, Hon Robyn Lambley. Minister Lambley read a speech on behalf of the Chief Minister, who sent his apology, briefly outlining the history of the NT Police in Tennant Creek and the benefits of this public infrastructure to community safety and staff morale.
As the local member, I was delighted to see the new police station open; however, I lamented the opportunity for addressing our local police and their guests as the minister’s speech was hollow and misleading considering it was my lobbying, as the MLA, and the previous Labor government’s commitment to Tennant Creek, which secured the important capital works. I would have outlined a suite of new capital works projects representing government investment in community safety and rehabilitation with the Barkly Work Camp, the new sobering-up shelter, the increased investment in alcohol rehabilitation beds, and the new police station, all delivered in the past four years.
The minister missed the opportunity of highlighting Tennant Creek and the Barkly pioneering new strategies for addressing offending behaviour and Correctional Services; however, he managed to claim the Tennant Creek Hospital emergency department capital works and the 16-bed prisoner work placement project at the Ali Curung watermelon farm, which were all Labor government initiatives.
The ABC journalist covering the new police station story was keen to hear my background information acknowledging the previous Labor government’s achievements, yet flippantly decided that claiming all the glory was the prerogative of a new government.
I also comment on some news reports and media releases where the new government is celebrating new infrastructure in the Territory. I commend them on that because they are acknowledging that the stimulus strategy which saved the Territory from the grips of the global financial crisis, saved jobs, delivered social infrastructure and set the Territory up for what we are seeing now as one of the fastest growing areas in the nation.
The Minister for Transport and for Infrastructure has been out in the field. That is great. The media release from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure on 14 January 2013 talked about the Dundee access being improved and how the local residents, the fishos, and holidaymakers enjoyed that improved access to Dundee Beach following the construction of the Annie Creek Bridge. It went on to talk about more roads infrastructure, better flood immunity, and considerably upgrading the infrastructure in that important area. It is great to see a CLP minister cutting ribbons and acknowledging the forethought, planning, and the delivery of a Labor government.
The minister also took the opportunity to open the Port Keats Road improvements and the new bridge, and there was great media around that from the National Indigenous Times on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 and the Koori Mail on Wednesday, 16 January 2013. Good on the minister because he talked about not only the stimulus strategy of infrastructure to the bush, but also about the jobs. That was a really strong message to send through these reputable newspapers, that are circulated nationally, about that connection between not only delivering social and public infrastructure in the bush, but also the attachment to jobs and training and the opportunities for local people. It is really good to see the new government celebrating one of Labor’s very powerful, successful policies: the fiscal stimulus strategy which was matched with a defined step-out strategy.
As the previous Treasurer continues to inform this House, the CLP is really misleading the Territory and creating its own discourse around what was, and is, a manageable debt in one of the fastest growing areas in the country.
Two other projects I hope to see the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure at soon are the 20 km of major upgrade on the Barkly Highway on the Queensland border and that very integral part of road transport infrastructure at the Gilbert Swamp. Those two projects have been battling Wet Season conditions but, fortunately enough, the new Minister for Transport and Infrastructure has had the opportunity of a dry Wet Season. These two projects have been able to maintain their momentum over the construction period during the Wet; they have had a few setbacks, but it is major roads infrastructure which has created many jobs, and a nice relationship has developed between the community of Mungkarta and the contractor on the Gilbert Swamp. Some good work will be done around the community and I hope that translates to further professional relationships where maybe some of those community members might get a job out of it.
Once again, I look forward to that and to more of those projects commenced under the previous government coming to fruition, being acknowledged by the CLP government, and being opened by the Country Liberal Party ministers.
In Tennant Creek, the February/March Budget Cabinet of the new CLP government will lock down. They are going to create the new Territory budget, and I hope to see their election commitments for lowering the cost of living and delivering more capital works programs into regional and remote areas. For instance, a family crisis centre, a youth centre, and youth accommodation facility were Country Liberal Party promises for Tennant Creek, with a government business centre, retail centre, and major upgrade of the Savannah Way for Borroloola. These projects represent good government investment in supporting public infrastructure while growing the economy and creating jobs, like Labor’s policy and delivery.
Let us see some more CLP investment in the Barkly. No more speaking with forked tongue. There are many other regional and remote electorates which will benefit from a continuation of these projects that have the opportunity of involving local communities and delivering jobs. The Minister for Correctional Services talked about offering the most disadvantaged in our community a real future, buddying up with real industry, becoming part of the future of the Territory, the prosperity of the Territory, and developing what the minister has highlighted in this House: the ability to stand up straight and tell a story to your family and understand what has taken place; that is, you have developed self-esteem and you are on the right track. You are not continually back through that revolving door of Correctional Services and the grief that goes with it, not only as an individual, but for all your family and your friends. That sadness exists when you are missing in action as opposed to being with family on country being able to celebrate your story.
In regard to what the member for Fong Lim said about having to leave home, I continually say it in this House, and I continually say it to the young people in the Barkly, ‘No, you do not’, because the new cycle of mining, construction, transport and infrastructure is the block shifts. It is 10 days on and five days off; it is 14 days on and seven days off. You can still live in paradise; you can be cashed up and have the resources to enjoy it with your family, have a healthy lifestyle for your kids, and work at the same time.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of residents of Pearl Retirement Village and Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries staff from Berrimah Farm. Both groups are undertaking tours of Parliament House. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you. We hope you enjoy your time here and the visit.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Frivolous Points of Order and
Unparliamentary Comments
Frivolous Points of Order and
Unparliamentary Comments
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I will say a few words before we start Question Time. The last two days in Question Time have been rather robust, which is fine; however, I will not be accepting frivolous points of order and warnings will be given. When seeking a point of order, I do not always see you if I am looking to one side so you need to be audible. You need to get the Speaker’s attention if you are trying to make a point of order.
Also, I will not tolerate unparliamentary comments about parties, groups or organisations because they are, indirectly, the individual. I will not tolerate any groups or parties, government or opposition, calling each other liars or words of that nature.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure
Move Motion of Censure
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Chief Minister for his broken promises, the pain he is causing and his arrogant dismal of the very real concerns Territorians are facing as a result of his mean-spirited decisions.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government accepts the censure motion from the opposition and we postpone any other government business to take this censure motion on immediately.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Thank you for the invitation.
I am sorry members of the Chamber; I did not have time to ask one more question before we went to the censure motion. So the public knows the question, I was going to ask the Health minister, Dave Tollner, if he would make a pledge not to knife the current Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and if his colleague, the member for Braitling, would make the same pledge that there would not be a leadership challenge after the Wanguri by-election. We are hearing loud and clear the knives are being sharpened for Terry Bills and Robyn Lambley…
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member knows full well she is obliged to refer to members of this Chamber by their electorate, not their names.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. Opposition Leader, refer to members by their electorate. Please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, Madam Speaker. I move that the Chief Minister be censured for his broken promises, the pain he is causing and his arrogant dismissal of the very real concerns Territorians are facing as a result of his mean-spirited decisions.
What we saw during Question Time was a display of arrogance and inability to answer direct questions. We got the waffle and the roundabout colourful expressions from the Chief Minister, but no real answer to the Territorians who are suffering under the dramatic cost of living increases from the decisions he and his Treasurer have made under the advice of the Renewal Management Board: their mates who are being paid $1m in six months.
_________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, could you please pause. I acknowledge and welcome in the gallery the Year 8 Sanderson Middle School students accompanied by Ms Tammy Llewelyn. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you visiting Parliament House and hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________
Ms LAWRIE: Hear! Hear! What a great school Sanderson Middle School is. I am glad to see you here.
The real decisions made by the Chief Minister and his sidekick, the Treasurer, were made under the advice of the Renewal Management Board, the faceless men in the back room being paid $1m for just six months – and not just paid $1m, their luxury accommodation is being covered as well. What is that? Is it $1000 a week at the Esplanade high rise? We know they are paying for two, but we are hearing - this is where they hide the truth from Territorians - others on the Renewal Management Board are having their luxury accommodation bill paid as well.
They have ‘fessed up to two, but we heard there are definitely three, perhaps four. Come forward with the truth on that, Chief Minister, in your response to the censure motion. You have been hiding and dodging that question for some time. Respond and let Territorians know of the luxury accommodation being provided for the Renewal Management Board. You have ‘fessed up to two, but are there more? Are there three or four? Are they all being provided with NT Fleet vehicles to drive around in?
While you are at it, Treasurer, if you are going to contribute to the censure motion and defend the indefensible, are you driving around in an NT Fleet vehicle? Is that parked in the basement, and under what conditions do you receive it? Members of parliament are only entitled to their electorate vehicle, so please feel…
Mrs Lambley: Pool car.
Ms LAWRIE: It is a pool car. I pick up on the interjection. The Treasurer is driving a pool car. Under what conditions? You are only entitled to your electorate vehicle, Treasurer, you are not entitled to a government pool car. No minister has ever been entitled to a pool car. Your conditions of employment are in the Remuneration Tribunal decision. You are only entitled to an electorate vehicle or, if you wish to hand that in, you get a car allowance. You are driving a pool car…
Mrs Lambley: When I need to.
Ms LAWRIE: When you need to you drive a pool car. We have a confession in the censure debate that the Treasurer is accessing public, taxpayers’ resources she is not entitled to. That is an extraordinary admission.
It is interesting, because we are hearing this open and accountable government with the commitment of, ‘We will be accountable, we will be open, we will be honest with Territorians, we will be transparent’ and we will change the estimates process of this parliament. This is the estimates process they argued for in opposition. The CLP, in opposition, argued vehemently for the estimates process this parliament has. Now, we are hearing they have drafted up changes to the estimates process.
Come clean, Chief Minister! Tell us in the censure response what you are doing to estimates. Let the public know to what extent you will go to hide your misuse of funds.
We have just had the Treasurer admit on the record today in parliament she is misusing taxpayers’ funds, allowing herself use of a car to which she has no entitlement ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am looking for a copy of the censure motion. I have checked the desks around here and it has not been circulated. I am unsure what we are supposed to be responding to. Has the motion been circulated? Okay, it has not.
Madam Speaker, perhaps we should pause this debate until the motion has been properly circulated otherwise it would be unfair on honourable members.
Madam SPEAKER: We will pause.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I guarantee I will speak for the full extent of the clock so the pause is unnecessary.
Madam SPEAKER: No, we will stop the clock. Could you please stop the clock, Mr Clerk?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This motion has now been circulated. It does not have the attached required signature. Can the honourable members opposite make this motion conform with standing orders?
Ms Lawrie: I am signing this version for you.
Mr ELFERINK: Could the signed version be circulated please, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Mr Stokes, can we have that circulated, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I have now received a copy of the censure motion with the appropriate signature and I thank the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: Start the clock please,
Mr. Clerk.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, in all my time in government, when the opposition led a censure motion we were happy for it to proceed while it was photocopied and distributed because we knew the person leading the censure motion would avail themselves of the full time on the clock. It would be extraordinary if they did not. That was some weird move by the caped crusader on the government benches, the man who is personally seeing to the wellbeing of every Territorian. Bless the caped crusader.
The stunt is not going to save the fact that in the early part of the censure motion the Treasurer admitted she is availing herself of a pool car to which she has no entitlement. What really sticks in the craw of public servants listening to this debate is they have had their cars taken from them by this government.
This town is talking about the mean and vengeful actions of a government out of touch and out of control. People who need a car to undertake their duties have had them taken from them. This government is ensuring the Treasurer who lives in Alice Springs and comes to town for sittings and other ministerial business, as had previous Labor ministers - Peter Toyne was in Alice Springs, a busy man; he came to parliament for sittings, came to Darwin for business all the time, including Cabinet meetings as did Karl Hampton. They never availed themselves of a pool car.
Alison Anderson, who sat on the government benches for Labor did not because we knew none of these people were entitled to one. Their entitlements of office are spelt out in the Remuneration Tribunal Decision. Whether you are a minister or a backbencher, a member of parliament is only entitled to access an electorate vehicle or, if you hand that in, which a few of us have, the allowance.
You are taking an entitlement, Treasurer, to which you have no entitlement and, at the same time, your mean-spirited and nasty government has being ripping vehicles off public servants who need them to do their job and have had them in their employment arrangements for years. I will not name the public servants who have approached me about the extraordinary removal of cars from positions where it impedes their work because of one factor: fear. Fear is gripping the public service across the Territory. Whether they are in Darwin, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs, it is the talk of the Territory because they have seen vengeful, mean-spirited and nasty actions from the Terry Mills government.
People in the public service see governments come and go from power. That is democracy; they are used to it and they serve the government of the day. They cannot believe the vengeance they have seen across the public service and are fearful, and that fear is almost immobilising. It is very much the talk of the Territory about the mean-spiritedness - people have been ripped out of their positions and put in a corner. People will not talk to them, you have to shun them; you have to ignore them because they are tagged as Labor supporters.
We have seen sackings not just at the CEO level, but at different levels of management. Yes, those people have gone quietly because they want to live in the Territory; they want to stay here and get another job and they know there is a vengeful and mean-spirited government in the Territory now.
Labor never behaved like that. We removed one CEO and that was it. We did not go on the hunt. I remember when a CLP senior staffer…
Mr Mills: Go on, elaborate please. It just came back to mind, did it?
Ms LAWRIE: No, no. I remember when a CLP senior staffer had a falling out with the then Opposition Leader, Terry Mills - a big blue - he was punted out of the office of the Opposition Leader. What happened to him? He was given a job in the public service. We were not mean-spirited, we did not say, ‘You are CLP, a senior advisor to the Opposition Leader so we will not touch you. We do not trust you’. He had skills and he got the job. He had a family and he got the job. Unbelievable!
The broken election promises are a litany. The cost of living - we had the weasel words of the Chief Minister in parliament this morning saying, ‘We promised we would cut waste and reduce debt’. He is stepping away from the notion somehow he promised to lower the cost of living. There were newspaper, television and radio advertisements. They all exist; they have not been wiped magically like they might have been from your mind. You promised to reduce the cost of living yet in Question Time today, when asked about reducing the cost of living, it was. ‘Oh no, we promised to reduced waste and debt’.
Let us go to reduced waste. How on earth do you reduce waste when you add 12 departments? Anyone who knows budgeting of departments knows if you increase departments you are increasing your on-costs: your staffing cost, corporate and branding costs. We had the nonsensical changing of the name of the Department of Children and Families then changing it back. That was two sets of branding changes very quickly. The costs for that are enormous. Then, of course, after all that they decided, ‘No, we will scrap the department altogether and make it the Office of Children and Families and shove it into the Department of Education’. Everyone working in that area says it has not worked. It is a complete and utter shemozzle and that is a kind way of putting it. The consequences of that bungling and increasing cost - not reducing waste, increasing it - are slashing the child protection services budget to the non-government organisations.
NTCOSS has lost 50% of its budget. Funding to non-government organisations was slashed by 5% on Christmas Eve. There was 24% across services designed to assist families and children at risk. When you are not at the front end dealing with the children of families at risk what happens? They slide into the crisis and become acute cases in the child protection system. That was the whole point of the Little Children are Sacred reports and Growing them strong, together: to reform the system. You have crashed through that, torn it apart and have not reduced waste. You have increased cost by foolishly changing the branding of the department twice, then changing it a third time to make it an office.
There are 12 additional departments. If you exclude the statutory authorities of the Commonwealth, this government has more departments than any government in the nation. How is that reducing waste? When you say you will reduce debt, you had the media and other commentators for a little while until you handed down your mini-budget which saw an increase in debt over the forward estimates. Everyone said, ‘We were sold a pup’.
You say we were going bankrupt. We had a AA+ stable outlook from Moody’s, the fastest growing economy in the nation, the entire non-financial debt levels, including the Port Authority, Power and Water and the general sector - all your government agencies - all together and the debt costs 8% of revenue to service. How would anyone feel if they were spending 8% of their income to service their mortgage or rent? You are in a good shape. Independent economic commentators all point to the Territory being in good shape.
Cut through the spin cycle of the CLP and they are wrong. They are using their spin to justify breaking their commitment to Territorians during the election to reduce the cost of living. The Power and Water debacle of Terry Mills is a point in case, hiking tariffs up on the evidence of the Renewal Management Board. That was not a comprehensive tome imbued in evidence. The only factual information in the Renewal Management Board’s progress report was the same information contained in the PEFO, the pre-election fiscal outlook. The figures the Renewal Management Board came forward with were the same figures the Under Treasurer - who was sacked - released prior to the August election. The pre-election fiscal outlook has the same figures.
The difference in the Renewal Management Board report is its suppositions. It said, ‘Here are emerging issues that will cause the compounding debt problem’. One was repairs and maintenance requirements across police facilities. They should have chosen the health system’s repairs and maintenance requirements, or looked at the education system’s repairs and maintenance requirements. Any government managing their books and liabilities knows you have a growing repairs and maintenance burden because your buildings are ageing. Police was one example they used. Why they chose that is curious to me.
Part of every budget cycle when a government sits around the Cabinet table to work out priorities is also to consider repairs and maintenance. To say, ‘There is a $48m liability there’, - as I pointed out, you make decisions around the Cabinet table each budget based on what your spending envelope is. You say, ‘Here are the priorities. What gets up in the police request? What gets up in the justice request? What gets up in the health request?’ The real demand pressure is not even mentioned in their report so how good are they?
Health is the highest demand pressure point on any Territory budget growing by between $20m and $40m per annum in demand depending on how much downward pressure you put into the health system. Downward pressure is managed by new systems and practices. A new system and practice about to be put in place to reduce the acute bed block and costs at RDH was the medi-hostel. This short-sighted, mean-spirited government stopped a hostel designed to reduce costs at Royal Darwin Hospital because those patients currently in acute beds - under hospital jargon it is called bed block - are not well enough to return to their community whether it is the Darwin community, the Tiwi community or anywhere. They are not well enough to be back there but not so sick they require full nursing in an acute bed. You have axed it; it was a saving.
You grow the systems to put in place savings. The child protection preventative measure of supporting children and families at risk was to end up with savings in the acute end: the real neglect and harm cases. However, you do not get that because your actions have not been based on evidence, they have been based on what you are being advised by the faceless men. They say, ‘Do this, do that’, and we have to do it that way. It is not based on evidence; there are no studies behind it.
The Labor government put up - for the first time in 20 years - Power and Water tariffs. If you listened to the Chief Minister in Question Time today we ignored it, we did nothing. We did not ignore it. We found the most highly-regarded regulator in Australia at the time, Andrew Reeves, and employed him to go through Power and Water’s financial state. He made a set of recommendations and we increased power tariffs by 18% in one year and 5% the next. We increased water and sewerage tariffs by 30% across three years. We did the first massive reset of tariffs in 20 years. At the time I was Treasurer and copped all the flak from the CLP for it. I made the point, reasonably I thought, that both CLP and Labor governments had not done the work on the tariff resets which had caused such a significant reset in 2009. I was fair.
In stark contrast, I based that tariff reset on a report from an expert with evidence in it, provided industry briefings on it, released the executive summary in detail, and put the expert before the media for scrutiny. What do we get? We do not get a report from an expert based on evidence for the tariff adjustments. We get unsubstantiated rhetoric from the CLP. It is extraordinary!
You went down that path and we get it. You want to reap dividends out of Power and Water; you want to make it as profitable as quickly as you can so you can reap the dividends you did when last in government. CLP, we get it. You want to fatten it up for sale. We get the model you are following. It has been a liberal model around Australia: fatten it up, privatise it and pump up the coffers with revenue from the sale.
We have seen it happen elsewhere, it is in the liberal DNA. We get what you are doing, but the consequences are what you are refusing to tackle. The consequences of your hiking up prices are that people cannot afford their Power and Water bills. Businesses cannot afford their Power and Water bills and are constrained in how they can pass those costs on to their customers, particularly in retail where we live in an online competitive environment. They are jammed and are going to the wall.
People are literally packing up, selling up and leaving based on this. You think that is just Labor spin. Whatever I say, because I am Delia Lawrie and Labor Opposition Leader, I must be wrong. Get out of your ivory tower and listen for yourself. It is real and it is happening!
Terry Mills, get on the doors in Wanguri. I have been doorknocking in that electorate. I have met many people who have told me the impact it has had on them and people they know who are leaving.
I have met people at lawn sales. Do yourself a favour, attend the lawn sales around Darwin for the next month and ask them why they are going. I have been to lawn sales, I have heard it directly. You think I am making it up because you do not want to know. You are in a bubble of denial and privatisation will be more pain to come.
Wherever privatisation of a utility has occurred interstate there have been significant tariff increases to follow. That is what Territorians are frightened of. They are really upset and angry about what you have done already. They can see through your spin and rhetoric and are frightened about what is to come, particularly when your Treasurer handed down a mean-spirited mini-budget cutting education and cutting into children and family services. When she said, ‘Oh, but there is more to come’, referring to the budget due this year, people were horrified.
You are slashing teacher positions; you have reduced funding to schools. Bush schools are telling us about their funding reductions. We are trying to negotiate with them so they can go on the record. The only thing holding them back at the moment is fear of losing their jobs. In the bush, where there are one or two positions, people know who has spoken. That is the only thing holding them back. We have it on our Job Watch site; we know them and are in contact with them. Guess what, members opposite? Some of those who have contacted us are in your electorates. These people voted for the CLP yet have seen significant cuts to their schools. The fact you stand in this bubble of denial is appalling.
When you ignore the firefighters and the cuts you have made - the firefighters, who are saying, ‘Do not close Humpty Doo Fire station’ - you risk lives in the rapidly developing rural area because volunteers, as good as they are and fine Territorians they are, have other jobs and commitments and are not trained to deal with structural fires or road emergencies. That is the work of the Humpty Doo station. They go around during the day ensuring rural residents are putting in firebreaks – preventive, important fire work. You will hear this on the weekend and I am sure you do not want to hear it from me. I took the time to meet with firefighters after your decision and speak directly to them. Did you, Chief Minister? When you looked a little surprised at the protest rally and the detail being spoken of, was that the first time you were hearing it, Chief Minister? It is your portfolio; you are responsible for that decision.
The rescue vehicle at Palmerston with the Jaws of Life and the two firefighters there will go with the instruction to decommission the rescue vehicle. How is decommissioning a vehicle savings? It is capital, it has already being spent, and you are ignoring the consequences to people’s lives for what amount of savings? Have you quantified the savings to the firefighters?
You have ignored the fact the Australian Nursing Federation said at the protest rally that nursing jobs have been lost. These are frontline services. This is a broken promise; you said front line would be safe. These are frontline agency nurses. We know hospitals rely on agencies nurses as well as their staff to meet nurse to patient ratios. Those crucial ratios of care to save lives in our hospital system have been cut; they have been made redundant. It is not the Labor Party saying it but the Australian Nursing Federation. You will not believe them because you are in your bubble of denial.
You have escalated public drunkenness. I know you like to pretend you have not, all is good, the BDR never worked and there has been no change since the BDR. Open your eyes, get out in the streets, there is much more drinking. Listen to the tourism businesses around the CBD, which are desperate. People are doing horrendous things around their business premises, things they had not seen for some time because the BDR had been kicking in with effectiveness. Change the statistics all you like, people are not stupid, they can see the drunks are back.
The line-up at bottle shops came back when you scrapped the BDR. People who own licensed premises, bottle shops, had to put on security such was the overwhelming demand of people on the Banned Drinker Register who came flooding in. Is that okay? Stay in your bubble of denial because that is where you feel safe and secure, but step out into the real world and you cop it. I suspect you cop it a fair bit, and I suspect it is more than you let on because you are happier getting on a plane out of here.
You rub salt into the wounds with all these cuts, all these broken promises on the basis of, ‘It is debt we inherited from Labor’. To rub salt into the wound people watch you pay your mates $1m for six months and fund their luxury accommodation. Are they driving around in fleet vehicles they are not entitled to or is that written into their contracts? Can we see their contracts? Are you going to put that on the record? Will you be open and accountable about that? How long are you keeping them on for? There is a guessing game: is it February, March, is it longer?
Mr Deputy Speaker, It has been a very real concern. People are genuinely suffering as a result of this mean-spirited government and its mean-spirited decisions. If you were not so mean-spirited, the first thing you would have said at the protest rally on Tuesday was, ‘I am not closing the Humpty Doo Fire Station, and I am not going to remove the rescue vehicle’. You heard the real risk to lives consequences from the firefighter and you did not step up. That is why the crowd was shouting at you.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have no concern about the tenor of this censure. It is, quite plainly, a thinly veiled attempt to reinforce some points endeavoured to be made by the Opposition Leader. However, there is a case which needs to be answered and we are prepared to answer it. It is not in my nature to work too hard to deconstruct - in the words of the famous member for Barkly - the structure of this speech, what was endeavoured to be achieved by it, and how it all works to make the grand point.
There is a problem which has to be dealt with. You started, in your ill-prepared way, trying to draw into question leadership. You are not really in a very strong position to be talking to us, questioning us, and me, about leadership, member for Karama. You dwell in this space; you seem to thrive in this space. You come alive when you are in the world of rumours and add a little more to it. You really come alive when you are in the gutter; it is when you enter your own.
The community talks and there is seepage of information about your management style and concerns about how you are faring in your capacity to lead from opposition. These stories are in circulation too, but I will not spend time dwelling on that because you seem to have a greater preoccupation with it.
There is a fair amount of traffic on the wire regarding your style, your support, and the underlying anxiety about how things are faring and the contingency plans, which I understand are fairly well-advanced. You really are not in a strong position when you consider the brand you represent and the capacity for treachery with your boss in Canberra, whom you must obey, and is likely any day to be stabbed in the back by the bloke she stabbed in the back.
Heaven knows what goes on behind the scenes, but it leaves a very important question when it comes to leadership. Where will that leave your precious Labor Party selection of Nova Peris? The Leader of the Opposition is a great supporter of Julia Gillard and her captain’s choice of Nova. What will happen in the circumstance where the bloke who was knifed does the knifing and there is a new Prime Minister in the lead-up to this election announced in a peculiar fashion at the same time the vacant seat of Wanguri was announced, on the same day. There is something pretty odd and it seems to always be this smell around leadership. How you manage you internal decisions and business leaves most people disgusted with the Labor organisation. That seeps out and does not look good.
In the event there is a change, what is your position? Can the Leader of the Opposition assure the parliament Senator Trish Crossin will be given another chance of pre-selection if Prime Minister Gillard is replaced? These are important and real questions rather than the childish attempts at smear and innuendo that come with the predictable line around questions of leadership.
Questions of that nature from the Leader of the Opposition do not satisfy the real needs of the community which wants to see the government, and the Chief Minister, take their job seriously and make the necessary decisions
You have asked me to get out there. I am out there as much as I possibly can be. I have been in parliament a long time. I listen to people. I understand what decision-making is about. I am connected to people; I feel the pain and discomfort of people. I take that quite seriously and personally. In the long-term interests, and out of regard and respect for families and the future of the Northern Territory, particularly those young tradesmen and young people in their early stages of employment, we have to make decisions today to give them the capacity to be part of something very important.
In dealing with this rambling censure, it is important to go to an issue raised during Question Time. During Question Time, there was a disturbing revelation about the amount of public money put aside to service a large number of community organisations. That is its purpose; it is public funds reserved for a range of important community groups. Nearly $1m was put aside; in fact, $912 000.
The Opposition Leader gave us some insights and instruction into how Budget Cabinets make decisions. Obviously, the Labor Budget Cabinet decided on $912 000 to support a range of community groups. However, they cannot help themselves; they reached into that jar, took $803 000, and spent it in two months. The former Labor government spent the greater portion of that allocation in the lead-up to the election. When the government changed, we went to that line item and saw the jar was practically empty and, astonishingly, the greater portion of that was removed in the lead-up to the last election.
I had been to a number of community groups and was wondering how Labor members could be throwing money all around the place as if it was their money they were generously providing. It was actually people’s money they were providing and misappropriating. The gratitude is, ‘It is our money and we are giving it away, aren’t we jolly good fellows?’ There has been a change of government and we are left with an empty jar…
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr MILLS: This illustrates the attitude and personality of the former government. We now have this chiming; now she comes alive. The censure debate was fairly deadpan, meandering with inane nasty snipes here and there with no real structure to it. Put all that aside, it is very important because I know the personality of this Labor organisation. They are trying to say, ‘If there is no money left, many organisations such as the Glenti etcetera, will be left without money’.
Be absolutely clear on this, they will not be left without money! They have been left terribly exposed, as has the Northern Territory, by the mismanagement of the Labor Party and its capacity to dig into and appropriate funds for political purposes in the lead-up to the Territory election. None of these organisations, particularly the Glenti, has anything to be concerned about.
However, you need to be concerned because every one of these organisations will be told the circumstances in which we make these decisions. They will be supported. Make no mistake, if the Top End Pet Expo wants $1000 they will get it, but they will also be told why the allocation was not there and that Cabinet had to put money back into the jar. The Darwin RSL Sub-Branch and Anzac Day events - there will be money for them ...
Ms Lawrie: Like there was every year.
Mr MILLS: Yes, but what you are missing is an allocation was made and there was an expectation that these amounts would be provided. I cannot believe you have this terrible blind spot which keeps popping up and prevents you from hearing what has been said. There was an allocation but you used it. Then, when they seek money from the jar, there ain’t none there because you took it away!
I now give the assurance that those important community events have nothing to be concerned about. You should be concerned because it will be made clear there will be support for important community events.
It is typical of the Labor organisation to engender further fear and anxiety and stir up anger in the community. It is ill-founded because important community events such as the Glenti will be supported but they will be advised of the circumstances in which that support comes.
These events existed long before the Labor Party came to government. They have been established, and have thrived and grown in the community. They will continue to do so under a Country Liberal government, make no mistake about that.
Then we had the rambling censure. You did not get yourself organised. You started off going down one path, ended up going down another, and it is the same old stuff. It is as shallow as a puddle. It is a mile wide and an inch deep. There is not much to it. It is the same old superficial tirade of rubbish from the member for Karama and members opposite since they graced this Chamber. Now they grace the opposition benches.
You do not seem to worry about community interest or the effect that distortion and misinformation has on eroding the confidence and core strength of a community. There is a good reason why hard decisions have been made. Good people who are given the opportunity to provide leadership are obliged, in the interests of building community cohesion, to advise the context in which difficult decisions are made. Leadership is to leave a legacy and strengthen your community. You are more than happy to wring your hands with delight when lies and misinformation go out which set one part of our community against the other. It is like the almost unforgiveable story which went out, fostered and fertilised by the Opposition Leader - fingerprints all over it - creating the lie that the Country Liberal Party was giving gifts to people in the bush and fostering this ferment of hostility and anger in our community. That is unforgiveable.
It is a lie, and we have an almighty challenge to bring our community together. I cannot believe the Labor Party says one thing but inside there is something else. That is bad and has the capacity to foster racism in our community by allowing lies to be told and not corrected.
The morale of the community is damaged by that approach but you do not care. You do not worry about that and that worries me. You do not care that there is a debt problem. You would rather craft some superficial smart booklet which tries to ferment greater concern in the community than is warranted.
We are in difficult times but our community has dealt with difficult situations before. Look at the great Northern Territory community. Look at the stockmen in the bush, their connection to the land, and how hard it is living in remote communities. Our older citizens have survived difficult times, difficult economic circumstances during World War II, cyclones, all types of tragedies and disasters in our community. The families have held together, yet you do not mind trying to erode the glue holding the community together with misinformation and mistruths in the hope you might gain something to stand on. How could you stand on that? You are telling people their jobs are at risk and people are mean and nasty and out to get you. It is quite the opposite. We are endeavouring to put the Territory in a stronger position so the great opportunities for the Northern Territory can be realised.
I think of young tradesmen. Some left school before Year 12 and went into a trade. Now there is an enormous opportunity for them. I often think we need to get ourselves in a better position. I do not want to be a Chief Minister who looks back to see we are spending $1m every day to service debt when that $1m could be strengthening families, building our community, putting opportunity into people’s hands, increasing their capacity to be decision-makers and problem solvers, removing roadblocks in the bush to decision-making and empowering, and encouraging people to be involved in their story rather than just observers.
We are about removing the crippling debt burden. That is why we are making tough decisions to ensure there is capacity for grassroots organisations, notwithstanding the theft, the removal of that allocation for your own use in the lead-up to the election. Grassroots organisations will be supported and I can see the excitement because I have been around long enough. I know you guys. You will contact every Greek citizen and say, ‘The nasty Country Liberal Party will cut funding to the Glenti’. We are not going to cut funding to the Glenti. I know your type. We are not going to do it. However, we will explain the circumstances in which these decisions and support have been provided.
I value public servants, as does this government, and we are working with them. Denied access in many respects when in opposition, one of the joys of coming to government has been going through departments and meeting the good people we were unable to meet before and thank them for their contribution to the Northern Territory. Yes, these are difficult times. It is a time of change. People, instinctively, do not like change…
Mr McCarthy: They are not happy and do not trust you, Terry.
Mr MILLS: Is this your contribution to the debate?
Mr McCarthy: Yes, a contribution for you, Chief Minister.
Mr MILLS: I heard that from the group out the front and it is fine; it was no surprise. I understand that, but thank you for your first-class contribution to the debate.
There are many fine people at all levels working in the public service and that has been one of the joys of coming to government. I acknowledge there has been change. We have consistently explained the context in which the decisions were taken and recognise it has had a human effect. These decisions have been made for a good reason and good people will instinctively understand we are heading to a better place, a sustainable place and it puts capacity back into our community to solve problems.
However, to tell lies about what is happening in the public service, foster fear, feed anger and hatred and encourage people to spread information based on lies and an insatiable desire to score a political point is almost like people who laugh when someone falls over and hurts themselves. That is the attitude. You do not mind hatred and anger and would like to feed it because it is to advantage you. If you want to win by standing on that ground - I would not want to stand on that ground any day because you …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr MILLS: You will have your chance in this grand debate in a moment.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of the Opposition enjoyed the courtesy of an uninterrupted speech. I ask members opposite to contain themselves to a dull roar.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister has the call.
Mr MILLS: The book of misinformation and mistruths - do not worry about it. You like to win by cheating. You have an anecdotal grab bag of bits and pieces of information to construct this narrative. On page 2 you said we guarantee 600 public servants will be sacked. That is wrong. The 2012-13 mini-budget projects a decrease of 600 employees over the five years to 2015-16. No one has been sacked. Have you ever heard of natural attrition? Do you know how many people leave ...
Mr Gunner: Claire Gardiner-Barnes was natural attrition?
Mr MILLS: Mount your argument. This is childish stuff.
Figures released by the Commissioner for Public Employment show there were 19 989 full-time equivalent public servants in the December quarter. While being 50 less than the record high of 20 039 full-time equivalents in the September quarter, it is still 63 higher than the June quarter, the last full quarterly report before the August election. It does not worry you that you can circulate it and cause anxiety and concern, but it is based on a lie.
This shows Labor is willing to stoop to deception and spread fear among public servants and the community. I commend public servants for holding together and for the contribution they make in challenging times. However, there is a growing admiration you would not see because you are not looking for it. These are true Territorians involved in the great story of the Northern Territory and they are supported.
You have to - these facts might trouble you a bit - use real money to pay people’s wages. I would prefer real money to pay wages than use it to service debt at $1m a day. What can you buy for that? I will give you some work to do. Think about what you would do if you had $1m a day. How would you spend that? You blokes would probably spend it on May Day celebrations or something. What could you do to empower and enable members of our community to be involved? You could do all types of things. That is what this is about.
To build a pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mount Isa, imagine that...
Ms Lawrie: Is that a promise?
Mr MILLS: Not at the moment.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: I am responding to your censure debate. It would cost $700m to build that pipeline. With that debt gone, in 700 days you could build that pipeline. In less than two years, instead of interest repayments on debt, you could build a pipeline the Territory could own and all the gas flowing through that pipeline across to the eastern seaboard, onshore and offshore. Activity would surface in remote communities like Ampilatwatja, which I visited. I love that place; I have a beautiful painting on my wall. I learnt there is gas behind there. If you had a pipeline, gas could go into it. There would be real jobs for local people, real involvement, money and gas flowing. We could own the pipe and we would have it forever charging a tariff. Anyone who wants to send their gas through that pipeline - it is ours. That could happen in the Northern Territory but not under Labor. They are trapped in a corner trying to find some small point to giggle about when they get to the fourth floor. ‘We got him there’. ‘That was a really nasty thing to say.’ ‘Did you like that?’ ‘Oh yes, that was great’ …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr MILLS: You had your opportunity. You are texting someone for goodness sake! Take this seriously.
Ms Lawrie: You raised Ampilatwatja. Are you giving them their council as you promised?
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: This is really quite embarrassing. I have been in parliament for over 13 years. Keep maintaining your ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: What are we dealing with here?
I will ignore you blokes because you are not worth paying much attention to. You do not mind spreading misinformation. However, if you want to gain ground through the tactics you are employing, I would not like to be standing on the ground you are, not at all. You try to frighten parents who love their kids telling them money has been ripped out of schools. It has not ...
Ms Lawrie: Yes, it has.
Ms Anderson: No, it has not
Mr MILLS: Yes it has, no it hasn’t, yes, it has. Look at the figures! Listen to the facts! What type of leader are you? ‘I heard someone say the CLP is really nasty’. ‘Did you?’ ‘I heard that too’. Is this the debate we have? This is really quite embarrassing! What were all your years and aspirations to be in public office for? Why did you want to be here? Do you believe it is a debating club?
Then, there is the censure motion. You have, ‘This affects the running of our schools, our hospitals, our police stations, with 600 people sacked’. This is crap! You then said, ‘This affects our schools, our hospitals, and police stations’. People who trust civic leaders think, ‘Is that right? The Country Liberal Party will sack 600 public servants’? We will sack them just like, ‘You, you, you, you, you – go, because we enjoy that’. What will happen as a result of that? ‘You will leave the schools and get out of the hospitals. All the nurses will be gone, and you will close a couple of police stations’. Some people would read that and think, ‘Is that what will happen?’ because they trust civic leaders ...
Ms Lawrie: Her words were, ‘600 will be sacked’. They are her words on the 7:30 Report.
Mr MILLS: It is hardly worth debating with you. It is like debating with some naughty, nasty little kid. You have 600 sacked and the direct connection to schools, hospitals, and police stations. You know that is not true, but it does not matter because it gets your point across ...
Ms Lawrie: It is true. The nurses federation, firefighters.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Opposition Leader, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: They are not mentioned there, that is the point. You are running that story ...
Ms Lawrie: Firefighters, teachers.
Ms Anderson: Kick her out!
Madam SPEAKER: You are on a warning, member for Namatjira!
Mr Styles: You can sit there all day and say what you like and get away with it. We say one thing and are on a warning.
Mr Chandler: Put me on a warning.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, you are on a warning!
Mr MILLS: I have Territorians in mind. I am blocking what I see over there because it is not a good sight. They do not sound good either.
I am sure you guys have tried it 100 times, ‘Hey, listen kids, we are on social media, we are real cool. Believe it or not, even though they have said they will not we reckon they will cut funding to BassintheGrass because they do not like kids either’.
You have tried 100 times to get that story out! There is funding for BassintheGrass. ‘Yeah, but we do not trust you’ ...
Ms Lawrie: Are you confirming it?
Mr MILLS: I will see you at BassintheGrass.
Ms Lawrie: You are confirming it. Excellent.
Mr MILLS: It has been confirmed umpteen times!
Ms Lawrie: No it has not. No media release.
Mr MILLS: What we say we will do, we will do. We will do it; it is done. That does not stop you, ‘Give it another shot, seed this stuff out there, try to frighten people, try to upset people, make them angry, that is the community we want’. That is not the community we want ...
Mr McCarthy: What about BassintheDust?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Barkly!
Mr MILLS: You will have a chance for your great contribution to this magnificent debate, young fellow, in a moment. You will be like this one, ‘What about this? What about that? I just thought of another point’.
This is not how you conduct debates in parliament, mate. You should know. You told us you have not been here long enough so you do not know these things. This is not how it works, mate…
Mr McCarthy: Are you telling me?
Mr MILLS: Yes, I am telling you.
Mr McCarthy: Thirteen years?
Mr MILLS: Yes, that is right. I am still here and continuing on because we are going somewhere.
This censure motion should not gain the respect of any family in Wanguri because the issues need to be dealt with. It begs the question, Labor Party in government? No, if the Labor Party was in government the issue would still be there. Look at your track record. Do you believe Territorians think, ‘Yes, give those guys a go; they will deal with the debt problem?’ They created it! ‘Give those guys a go, they will deal with the cost of living, they will bring the cost of housing down’. They created the problem: a 200% increase ...
Ms Lawrie: Scrapped our schemes.
Mr MILLS: Rubbish! Not supported.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired. As it is a few minutes to midday, we will adjourn for the lunch recess.
Debate suspended.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Arnhem
Member for Arnhem
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the member for Arnhem today, 14 February, pursuant to Standing Order 25. The member is attending to ceremonial business in her electorate.
Leave granted.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, today we are censuring the Chief Minister for his broken promises, the pain he is causing Territorians, and his arrogant dismissal of real concerns Territorians are facing as a result of his mean-spirited decisions.
As local members, we all would have heard countless stories from constituents and others outside our electorates. Many people from CLP electorates are talking to us about the real pain they are feeling as a result of the CLP decision to break election promises and significantly increase the cost of living in the Northern Territory.
There are two issues at the moment in the forefront of most Territorians’ minds. There are other issues, and I do not want to make light of them. However, the two are both broken election promises: the CLP promise to cut the cost of living, and the CLP promise to immediately remove drunks from our streets.
What is worse than a broken promise to cut the cost of living is that the CLP lied during the last Territory election. That has most Territorians – frustrated is too light a word – incensed, angry and worked up. Obviously, people are hurting over increased Power and Water bills – a broken promise. There was a promise to cut the cost of living; however, the CLP has significantly increased the cost of living. That hurts. What has made people angry is the fact Terry Mills and the CLP, prior to the election, lied when they said they would cut the cost of living because the information used to make the decision to increase power prices power by 30%, water by 40% and sewerage by 25% was available to them prior to the election.
They knew, when they said they would cut the cost of living, they were going to increase it because the information they based their decision on was available before the election. I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Chair of the Estimates Committee, Chair of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee and they went through the Power and Water books with the CEO of Power and Water, the Chairperson of the Power and Water Board, the Treasurer, the Under Treasurer and the Minister for Essential Services. All that information was on the table. The Labor government was completely open with it and the CLP had full access to it. They knew everything before the election.
When they said, during the campaign, they were going to cut the cost of living they knew they would break that promise. They lied to Territorians and that is why people are angry. There seems to be this …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, we have ruled that …
Mr GUNNER: It is a substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay.
Mr GUNNER: We are currently in the middle of a substantive motion about the fact the CLP lied to Territorians. Territorians are angry because you lied to them and there is a lack of understanding from the other side why Territorians are angry.
We had the unedifying sight the other night of the member for Araluen, the Treasurer, saying we should be thanking the Chief Minister - shaking his hand for breaking an election promise. It is unbelievable - extraordinary. Territorians are angry you lied to them, but apparently we should be shaking the Chief Minister’s hand and thanking him for breaking the election promise he made to Territorians. He broke that trust and faith and now the government wonders why it is not trusted on other issues. People have seen you lie in a very short period of time.
You made a big promise before the election; you said you would cut the cost of living. As soon as you took government you increased power prices by 30%, water by 40% and sewerage by 25%, and have significantly increased the cost of living for all Territorians. You broke your promise. You lied to Territorians and that is why they are angry. It does not get much simpler than that. That is at the heart of nearly every Territorian’s dissatisfaction. The hurt, anger and pain are because you lied to them. You said one thing, did another, and the whole time you knew you were going to do it. That hurts; that sticks in the craw of most Territorians. They do not understand why you lied to them. You knew you would increase the cost of living if elected but you lied before the election and it really hurts.
The heart of this censure motion is the fact you lied to Territorians about cutting the cost of living. You said you were going to cut the cost of living when you knew you would increase it.
All the information was available before the last election. It was there and, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Chair of the Estimates Committee, and Chair of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, I saw the CLP work through those documents with the CEO of Power and Water, the Chairperson of the Power and Water Board, the Under Treasurer, the Treasurer and the Minister for Essential Services. It was all on the table and you still said you would cut the cost of living when you knew you would increase it. That is why Territorians are angry and why we see rallies outside Parliament House. We will see more rallies and they will be louder because Territorians are convinced you are not listening, you do not get it, and you do not understand why they are angry and feeling pain.
This is a complete breach of faith and trust because you lied to Territorians before the last election. We are only six months into a new government and people have lost faith and trust in the leadership of the CLP team. They have lost faith and trust in the Treasurer and the Chief Minister because you lied to them before the last election. You lied, and that is why they are upset and angry. This pain is being felt by many Territorians and businesses.
We have all heard stories of seniors and pensioners and the decisions they have to make to pay these bills. Pensioners have told me the only way they can find money for these bills is from their groceries. They will cut back their food shopping to pay the increased Power and Water bills. I have spoken to people who are ill and require medical equipment at home. They do not know how they will pay these bills. People have come into my office saying, with the first bill in, ‘We already know we are unable to pay this. We will have to go into a payment plan with Power and Water’. This is a savage increase in the cost of living and is breaking the back of Territorians and Territory businesses. It hurts even more because the CLP lied before the last election.
It is a double whammy. It is the hurt of paying the bill and knowing the leadership team of the CLP, the Treasurer and the Chief Minister lied before the last election. That is why people are angry and feeling more pain than just having to pay these bills. You are breaking the back of Territorians and Territory businesses.
We have heard from small business the pain of having to pay these bills. On the day it was announced the butcher called in saying, ‘I am going to shut one of my shops; I cannot afford to keep them open. The cost of refrigeration is too much. I have to close up. I know these bills are going up and I cannot afford my shop – gone’.
Today, in Question Time, we heard the Wanguri Supermarket has to pay an extra $1000 a month to keep the doors open. They were given six weeks to budget for this increase; six weeks to work out what changes can be made to the operation of the business. Can they get new infrastructure, new fridges? Six weeks is not long enough for a business to make those decisions and they will be slugged an extra $1000 a month to keep the business open.
I remember it from when I lived in Wanguri years ago. It is a cultural institution. People like their local supermarket; it is where they can gossip with the storekeeper. It is their place. An extra $1000 a month is breaking the back of small business. The Minister for Business used the theory of evolution saying if you are a good business you will survive, if you are a bad business you will fall by the wayside. That is not the answer you would expect from a member of the party which claims to speak for small business.
You are breaking the backs of ordinary Territorians and small businesses trying to make their way, doing it tough. You have slugged them hard. You have significantly increased the cost to do business, to live their lives, and what hurts even more is you lied before the last Territory election by saying you would cut the cost of living...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member opposite accused the Chief Minister of lying. There is nothing in the motion which censures the Chief Minister for lying. His comments should be restrained to the allegation inside the censure motion otherwise they are unparliamentary.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is the convention in this parliament that in a censure you seek leave to suspend standing orders. In suspending standing orders in a censure motion, you can make accusations of lying. It does not have to be contained to the wording of the motion. That has always been the case, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: I draw your attention to several decisions by your predecessor, Speaker Aagaard, who restrained comments to the allegation made in the censure motion and ruled ‘lying’ out of order when lying was not present in the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Pause for a moment; I will seek some advice.
Thank you, members. In the interests of keeping the debate fair and honest, derogatory terms are not to be directed towards members of this parliament.
Mr GUNNER: Madam Speaker, it is clear, in talking to this censure motion, why Territorians are angry. It is clear to the opposition the CLP does not want to hear. That was made clear at the rally. The CLP members are not listening and do not understand the pain of Territorians from the decision to increase the cost of living in the Northern Territory by significantly raising power and water - 30% power, 40% water, 25% sewerage - based on information they had access to before the last election. The whole time they were saying they would reduce the cost of living before the last Territory election they knew they would increase it afterwards. That is hurting Territorians.
You might not want me to say it in the Chamber, member for Port Darwin, but people everywhere are saying the words you will not let me say. Everyone is saying it because that is what they believe. You might not want to hear it from me; you might want to gag me and others here, but that is what ordinary Territorians and Territory small businesses are saying.
They believe it 100% because they saw it. They heard your promise before the last election and saw your decision after the election. You may not want me to say it but they know what you did. You might want to stop me, but it is too late; it has gone. People know and are upset, hurt and feeling pain and anger at the government because you significantly increased power and water prices based on information you had before the last Territory election. It is mean-spirited.
The answer from the Minister for Business that good businesses will survive and bad businesses will fall by the wayside is mean-spirited. What else can we expect from a CLP that considers air-conditioning a luxury? The CLP candidate for Wanguri said air conditioning in Darwin during the Wet Season is a luxury. What else can we expect from a mean-spirited CLP which said one thing before the election and another afterwards?
What else can you expect from a government which cuts funding to charities by 5% on Christmas Eve? I doubt you can be much meaner than that on Christmas Eve. It is about as mean as it gets. You had already whacked them an extra 30% for power, 40% for water and 25% for sewerage - they pay the bills - but on Christmas Eve you also cut their funding by 5%. It is extraordinary!
Then we had the ridiculous scene in Question Time and the ridiculous media release from the Chief Minister saying the future of iconic community events such as the Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti are under threat. It was a ridiculous media release! Then, during the censure motion, you said, ‘Rumours might start’. Of course, rumours will start. You issued a media release saying the future of iconic community events such as the Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti are under threat. Of course, rumours will start but you issued the media release. It is one of the most stupid things I have seen a government do. You did it, you said it, then wondered why Territorians do not trust you on this when you said the future of iconic community events, including the Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti, are under threat.
This government cut the Arafura Games. This government cut funding to charities by 5% on Christmas Eve. This government said before the election it would cut the cost of living and after the election increased it.
You wonder why Territorians do not trust you. You are shocked. ‘We don’t know. We don’t get it. Why don’t Territorians trust us?’ You broke the trust and today you issued a ridiculous media release saying the future of iconic community events, including the Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti, are under threat and you wonder why rumours start...
Ms Lawrie: Which genius thought of that?
Mr GUNNER: Which genius on the fifth floor thought that was a good media release? Which genius thought of issuing a media release saying the future of iconic community events, including the annual Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti, are under threat? The Chief Minister says rumours might start. Rumours have started because the Chief Minister started them. He fired the gun on the rumours.
This government has broken faith and trust with Territorians because it said one thing before the election and did another afterwards. You do not understand why Territorians do not trust you. You start your own rumours and become upset when they take off. ‘Oh my God, people are talking about the rumours we started’. You issue one of the stupidest media releases I have seen and wonder why Territorians are talking about it. You started the rumour.
These are the geniuses who said before the election they would cut the cost of living and did another thing afterwards by significantly raising the cost of power and water in the Northern Territory. They broke trust with Territorians. They broke faith with Territorians but do not understand why people are angry. It takes a mean-spirited government to write to charities on Christmas Eve to tell them they are cutting funding by 5%.
The government said in Question Time today that no public servant had been sacked. My friends who have been sacked are a little shocked by that and want to know when they can return to work. We all know public servants who no longer have a job. The Territory is a small place, Darwin is a small place, people know public servants who are no longer employed - had a job and now do not - yet the Chief Minister said in Question Time no public servant has been sacked since the last Territory election. A significant number of ex-public servants are rather gobsmacked by that assertion.
We have a very professional public service which does a fantastic job. As a government, you cannot achieve things without a professional public service working with you. The former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, did not get INPEX on his own; Clare Martin did not get INPEX on her own; Delia Lawrie did not get INPEX on her own. A very professional public service worked with government to ensure INPEX was delivered in the Northern Territory.
The Chief Minister, in Question Time, said, with a straight face, no public servant has been sacked. Public servants we worked with, colleagues, no longer have jobs. These are professional, capable, competent public servants who are - I do not know if I can emphasise enough that corporate knowledge is critical in the Northern Territory with the transient nature of our population. We have lost decades, probably centuries when you add it up, of experience from our public service and the Chief Minister said today in Question Time no public servant has been sacked. What an extraordinary assertion.
We all know public servants who have been sacked. I know someone who was a public servant on 25 August and now is not a public servant. Sometime in the last six months they lost their job. They were not sacked, according to the Chief Minister. They would beg to differ. They wrote to me after a debate on public servants in this Chamber last year about the professional job they do, how we felt for people in departments, the culture of fear that has emerged in departments, and the lack of confidence they feel in the current government and the lack of confidence they feel the current government has in them - a real fear. They saw people walk into the office of the CEO who never returned to work. Where did that guy go? Where did that girl go?
There was a real culture of fear in the public service and we debated that in this Chamber. I received an e-mail from a public servant who no longer has a job which says:
- On behalf of all affected, thank you for your comments valuing professional public servants. I obviously cannot acknowledge your debate remarks publicly for fear of retribution, but you have hit the nail on the head.
Whether we have spent more than 30 years working for the government of the day or are caught up in politics at its worst, the professional public servant is more than a carpet stroller. We have husbands and wives, children, parents and siblings. We have a skill set that, until now, has been highly valued and sought after. Some of us have been sacked outright, some forced to hang on with a Clayton’s sacking of just not being not renewed. Some have had their higher duties allowance cut with no forewarning and no reduction in their duties despite a slashing of pay levels, and some are still being forced to move to Alice Springs because if they do not say yes, they will not have a job.
We are real people who love the Territory. We have made this place our home and are now forced to consider a future outside the Territory where our skills will be valued. Thank you for giving us a voice.
We on this side are listening. The current government is not listening to the real pain of Territorians as a result of its decision to sack public servants and increase the cost of living despite promising to cut it. There is still the fear people feel in the streets as a result of the compromise on public safety as the government has not honoured the promise to immediately remove drunks from the streets but, instead, scrapped the Banned Drinker Register, Alcohol Courts, Return to Country and Night Patrol. They have scrapped programs which were in place.
We know the government does not support those programs but it has done nothing, despite the election promise to immediately remove drunks from the streets. Instead, the Chief Minister said you should politely ask drunks to stop doing whatever they are doing. That is the CLP’s response to the promise on the front page of the 100-day action plan to immediately remove drunks from our streets.
The Country Liberal Party does not understand why Territorians are angry with them or why Territorians are hurt because they feel deceived. They heard the government say one thing before the election, as an opposition, and afterwards do another. They are hurt, angry, and believe the current leadership team of the Country Liberal Party has failed them completely and utterly. They have no confidence in the current leadership team of the Country Liberal Party because you broke trust and faith with them. You said one thing and did another. You are not listening; not hearing their hurt or their anger.
The Chief Minister said today no public servants have been sacked. The Chief Minister is in denial about the current state of the Northern Territory, what is happening, how public servants are feeling and the mood in the public service as a result of working with this government...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Has the clock stopped? It has.
Madam SPEAKER: My apologies. Your time has expired, member for Fannie Bay.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to the censure motion initiated by the Leader of the Opposition that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Chief Minister for his broken promises, the pain he is causing and his arrogant dismal - that is what it reads - of the very real concerns Territorians are facing as a result of his mean-spirited decisions. It is a poorly written censure motion. What a joke!
We had to wait 10 or 15 minutes while the opposition got its act together and organised paperwork for the censure. Now we read the words of the censure and they do not make any sense. It is just like the opposition; they do not make sense. We all had a cup of tea while waiting and then came back to listen to the drivel from the Opposition Leader whose first comment was to say, ‘The Treasurer, the Deputy Chief Minister, uses a pool car’. Well, hello! That is of great significance to the people of the Northern Territory. I am sure everyone is shocked and horrified I use a pool car I am entitled to. I would like to see in writing where ministerial staff, including the minister, are not entitled to use a pool car. The only thing annoying the Leader of the Opposition about that is it is parked next to her car in the car park. Perhaps it is not up to the standard she expects…
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You are parked next to Millsie! I am between Dave and Millsie.
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down. There is no point of order.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, I withdraw that comment. I am sorry the pool car is parked very close to the Leader of the Opposition’s car. It is always parked there, which is why she brought it up today.
Let us talk about serious things. The reason we are in this pickle in the Northern Territory is because the opposition, the former Treasurer, the former Labor government, five-and-a-half months ago presided over a fiscal problem they tried to conceal. However, coming to government we uncovered something worse than we expected: a fiscal deficit skyrocketing to historical proportions and a debt looking to reach $5.5bn in the forward estimates. Through our mini-budget process, we have been able to bring that back to a more manageable level.
We came into government five-and-a-half months ago and went about trying to analyse the state of play with the Territory’s finances. The enlightened member for Fannie Bay, the ever so polite next Leader of the Opposition, gave us, as usual, quite a riveting speech and talked about how angry Territorians are, how disappointed they are, and what a terrible range of things we have undertaken over the last five-and-a-half months.
Over that time we have started to correct the mistakes and appalling judgment calls of the former government. We have had to use certain people and we make no apologies; we employed the outstanding expertise and wisdom of several human beings. Yes, they are old and yes, they are men, and people over the other side of the room seem to take offence to that. I will not say they discriminate, but it is bordering on discrimination.
We employed a group of human beings with great skill and commitment to the Northern Territory to assist us in a process of forensically analysing the state of the Northern Territory’s financial affairs. As the member for Fannie Bay mentioned, there were processes in place when we were in opposition to hear the reports of different people, particularly in the Power and Water Corporation, through the estimates process, what the state of affairs was in the Power and Water Corporation at that time. However, until you get to government, until you can conduct your own analysis, your own investigation as to what is happening, you never really know. You cannot take the word of the government of the day - the former Labor government - because they were hiding much and had a huge amount to hide.
What we came away with, as opposition leading into the election, was hugely different to what we found when we came to government. There were two very different stories: the pre-government perception of the state of the finances and the post-government perception after undertaking that forensic analysis.
We employed a group of people who became the Renewal Management Board and we make no apologies. They are remunerated as they should be. We are thankful they have taken time out of their lives. They live in different parts of the country, but have come here voluntarily to assist us. They found problems beyond our imagination, beyond the scope of what we thought possible in mismanagement and fiscal problems within the Northern Territory.
Critical to what we found were the revelations around the Power and Water Corporation. The Power and Water Corporation contributes 40% towards the deficit of the Northern Territory finances, which is a huge slice of the problem. We found the Power and Water Corporation was recording financial losses; it was running in a financially unsustainable way. To continue, the Power and Water Corporation would have to rely almost exclusively on borrowings to fund its capital spending for replacement as well as growth. The former government had set up a system whereby all the capital - the huge amount of capital expenditure they committed to - $1.8bn was almost exclusively funded through borrowings, which is just outrageous. In borrowings to fund capital expenditure, 50% or less is the ideal place. This government was using almost 100% borrowings to fund their capital expenditure.
This is where the problems lie. The former government resisted any advice given to increase revenue and instead borrowed, borrowed, borrowed. This is a theme of the former Labor government; they were reluctant to make any decisions around increasing revenue, tariffs or fees of any shape or form because they saw it as politically unsavoury, politically risky. They knew we had a hung parliament; the kingmaker, Gerry Wood, was the only thing keeping them in government. They were not willing to make good financial decisions because they knew they would put their tenure in government at risk.
That is exactly what they did! They ignored the advice of the former Chairman of the Power and Water Corporation, Judith King. Yesterday I spoke about communication between the former Treasurer and Judith King. Judith King advised the former Treasurer to raise tariffs - increase revenue for the Power and Water Corporation. The response from the former Treasurer was, ‘Yes, we will increase the tariffs but not until 2012-13, after the election’. We have it on record. Despite what you hear from the opposition, we know the former Labor government had every intention - only if they won the election - of increasing tariffs for electricity, sewerage and water for all Territorians. It is on the public record.
When we came to government we knew the prudent thing to do was address this very serious problem. Power and Water Corporation was running inefficiently, thanks to the former Treasurer, the former shareholding minister who had no idea how to run the corporation. She had no understanding of how to go about this business. She did not take advice. She was quite arrogant in the way she approached her role and quite negligent in the decisions she made.
We had to address the problem of Power and Water Corporation contributing 40% towards the deficit. One of the few solutions available was to look at the organisation, identify savings and efficiencies, but we also had to consider increasing revenue. We had to increase the tariffs; it was one of the few options available.
Despite the advice given to the former Treasurer in 2009 to increase tariffs by 40%, she failed to do so. Here we are, a new government, having to stand before the people of the Northern Territory and, reluctantly and sadly, break the news the former Labor government had failed them - had failed to implement incremental increases in the tariffs and we were lumped with this awful decision. All on this side of the room have lost sleep over it. It not only affects the people the Labor crew talk to, it affects our friends, our families, us, and our constituents. You are not alone in experiencing the pain of this terrible decision we had to make. However, it is the right decision.
In 2008, the Northern Territory’s electricity tariffs were around the state average. From 2008 to when we increased the tariffs, the previous government’s increases did not keep pace with the average increases for the states and we drifted down. Our electricity tariffs, by the time we reached government, were the lowest in the country. All jurisdictions across the land were prudently increasing their tariffs so their power and water utilities corporations - whatever model they had - could run in a sustainable way. You cannot run a business without ensuring your revenue and expenditure are aligning.
When we increased the electricity tariffs they came up to slightly above the national average - fractionally. The tariff increases are painful but are now sitting around the national average. We are paying no more or less than any other jurisdiction in the country. That does not make us or people facing these hefty increases in their utility tariffs feel any better. They have to come up with the money and manage things differently. Businesses have to factor in these increases, but we are all in the same boat, and, in time, hopefully, things will level out as wages increase and the quality of life throughout the Northern Territory increases with other initiatives of this new government.
The Power and Water Corporation was left in a diabolical condition by the former Labor government. Our hand was forced into making considerable increases. As the member for Fannie Bay spouted: 30% for electricity, 40% for water, 25% for sewerage. The people of the Northern Territory have been shocked by it and the Labor rally held outside Parliament House on Tuesday was a display of union members and various Labor Party supporters who feel it is our fault.
Perhaps some people will never take the time to understand the rationale for why we had to make these decisions. From my perspective, it was the last thing I imagined I would be doing as a member of the new government. Making those announcements was one of the most difficult things I have ever had to do in my political life, but I stand by the decisions. They were tough decisions but, in the long run, I am confident we have done the right thing. The former Labor Party was not able to do the right thing; it is not in its DNA. They were negligent of their duty. They were scared of the consequences, and political opportunism won out at the end of the day.
I will move on from Power and Water, but the people of the Northern Territory need to understand what happened because the critical accusation made today is we, for some reason, through our meanness of spirit, our lack of humanity, have made these dreadful decisions. That is not the case at all.
At the end of the day, if we can reduce our deficit and this skyrocketing debt path the former Labor government set the Northern Territory on, people will thank us. I remind people, thanks to Labor, we pay $750 000 a day in interest payments.
Every time I say it I am shocked by it. For such a small jurisdiction - 235 000 people - that is an enormous amount of money Labor has left us having to pay every day. It is no exaggeration; it is a fact and if we were to keep going on the trajectories left by Labor, it would have increased very quickly to $1m a day in the forward estimates. That is astronomical, unbelievable and, quite frankly, frightening. Two-hundred-and-thirty-thousand people subjected to that type of interest payment per day is almost unimaginable, but it is true. It is a fact people need to know. This is what Labor has given you and all that money paid out every day on interest payments means you are missing out.
The mums and dads doing it hard across the Territory, single people, elderly people, are all doing it tough - these are tough times. To know that huge amount of money will pay off loans and not into things that have substantial meaning and significance in your lives, things you need to enhance the wellbeing of your life, is bordering on criminal.
The Opposition Leader takes no responsibility for any of that. Apparently, in five-and-a-half months, we have created all this and the allegations in this motion stand; it is all our responsibility. However, for the public record, I tell the people of the Northern Territory that is not the case. We are repairing the problems, we are trying to address the mistakes of Labor, of the former Treasurer, the worst Treasurer in the Northern Territory. I say that with no hesitation. Our level of debt is the highest of any jurisdiction in the country per capita…
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the Deputy Chief Minister be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Vatskalis: It is a censure motion; you do not have an extension of time.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I inquired about this prior to the debate commencing. The advice I received from the Clerk was it was a matter for the House to determine whether or not there was an extension in a censure motion. The House has, I believe, determined the matter.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Previous Speakers did not give an extension of time during a censure motion.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I sought advice from the Clerk in relation to this when the debate started. My advice is there is nothing in standing orders preventing an extension if the House so desires.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice. You have the call, Treasurer.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Madam Speaker, I will address the member for Fannie Bay’s comments. He said Territorians are angry with the new government. I believe Territorians are angrier with Labor’s mismanagement of the Northern Territory finances for many years. The smart people of the Northern Territory understand why we are in the position we are. Labor tends to belittle and underestimate the average Territorian. People get it. When I return to Alice Springs I do not hear any of this stuff the Leader of the Opposition talks about. I hear that people understand the former Treasurer really had no idea what she was doing and that is why we are in the state we are at the moment.
Territorians are angry Labor has fed them mistruths. They have misled and misinformed them about the state of Northern Territory finances and the state of the Power and Water Corporation. In those little booklets distributed for the Wanguri by-election, the opposition claims we have lied. That little booklet is a testament to the magnitude of lying from the Labor factory. It is a document called Labor lies ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is using the words ‘liar’ and ‘lies’. You have already ruled that out.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, it has been ruled. Please withdraw that comment.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw it. Instead, I will say misinformation and misleading. Territorians are also very angry that the …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have also ruled out misleading.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, if you could be succinct but careful in your comments, please.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The people of the Northern Territory understand this booklet does not contain much in the way of credible information. Territorians are angry the former Chief Minister has abandoned the ship like a frightened rat on a sinking ship. He has jumped ship and …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is offensive to a former member of parliament and to me as a parliamentary colleague.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The exercise was one of a simile, not a metaphor. She did not say he was a rat, she said he was like a rat. The exercise of a simile is a normal function of the English language. Metaphor and simile, if ruled unparliamentary, would render debate in this House almost impossible.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, if you could keep to the point of the debate.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Territorians are very unhappy with the former Chief Minister for jumping ship. Today we look across the room at an empty seat, a signal he has no confidence in his team; he could not get out of there quick enough. The member for Port Darwin said he did not even unpack his boxes. He knew he was leaving and Territorians are angry about that.
Territorians are very angry with the Nova Peris fiasco. It really upset people that the Leader of the Opposition did not back her colleague of many years, Trish Crossin. She backed Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of the country. Territorians are very angry with the Leader of the Opposition because she has no loyalty. People are very angry she allowed the Prime Minister of Australia to dictate to her team, her people and the Labor Party of the Northern Territory, who their Senate candidate would be.
Madam Speaker, the fact that we are on this side of the room and they are on that side signifies where the anger is. The people of the Northern Territory are angry with the mess the former Labor government left us in. People are optimistic, they know there are difficult decisions ahead, ones we have had to unfold over the last couple of months, but they feel the Territory is now in good hands and will be properly managed. It will be fiscally managed in a way which will put us on a strong path to economic growth and prosperity.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not normally vote on censure motions, but I will voice my opinion on what many people in the rural area are saying at the moment.
You can say what you like about whether this side, when in government, did the wrong thing or not. At the moment, there is anger with the government about what it has done which is nearly palpable. It is not an anger that means people do not accept the debt has to be paid. Most people I have spoken to accept the government had to pull back from a deficit. However, people feel we can be in deficit from time to time. If you go back in the history of this parliament you will see the CLP has been in deficit. That is how this building, State Square and the Supreme Court were built. When they built the hotels in Yulara and Darwin they needed to go into debt at times to keep the economy going. It is a bit much to say governments should not go into debt from time to time to keep the economy going.
When this building was built they did a deal with Warren Anderson and another company. It was built to keep the economy going. I understand there was a reason to go into debt before. I am not saying there was no wastage, but INPEX was coming online and to ensure the economy kept ticking over during the global economic crisis and there was work for people some input was needed.
Whether you like it or not, in my part of the world there is an enormous amount of work. It is because of the prison and the INPEX village. It is now starting at the Girraween shopping centre area where houses are being built. I sometimes have trouble crossing Howard Springs Road on my bike at about 6.15 am to 6.30 am because there is so much traffic going from Darwin through Howard Springs to work at those facilities. In this debate we have forgotten that many people are working.
I would like to see the financial benefit to the Territory of all that work. INPEX and the prison are some of the biggest projects we have ever had in the Northern Territory. I have not heard the balance to the argument that we are all going down the path of terrible debt. I am not saying if we continued the way we were going - I have seen the figures.
The previous Chief Minister, in his last speech to parliament, said the government would not have allowed the debt to continue; it would have adjusted the budget.
Most people are saying they do not disagree with the CLP pulling in from debt, but it happened too harshly. When you hit people with a 30% increase in electricity, 40% for water, 25% for sewerage and they have no way to pay because they have not had an increase in wages, they are hurting. Yes, by all means try to reduce debt, but do it in a compassionate way. The economic rationalists tell you we pay so much debt every day of the week. Fair enough, we need to reduce that. The previous CLP government, in its day, must have reduced it because when it built this it went into debt. It had to pull the purse strings in to ensure it got through.
When you go back in history, who is to blame for the high capital expenditure on Power and Water? Both sides of government failed to increase electricity tariffs for years because they were scared it would cost votes. The other side of it - I have been around long enough – is they cut the guts out of Power and Water similar to what is happening now because they believed you did not maintain things until they broke. Today we have a legacy of both governments with policies which have turned into reality because we have had to spend huge amounts of money on substations, upgrading generators at Channel Island, and bringing in new generators to Weddell.
Yes, it is big expenditure. However, if we did not have that expenditure we would not have the money to continue with the industries now coming onshore. Yes, we are in debt. Most people are saying it would be nice to get out of debt. The issue is it has been done too harshly. It should have been done in a gradual way so people could budget for it and there be some allowance that their wages would move in parallel with those charges.
I will not tell the government it should not be trying to reduce debt. My argument, and that of many people in my area, is it is too severe. It hits people too harshly and that has not been taken into account. You are doing the right thing by reducing debt, but the manner you are doing it is what most people are thinking of; they do not disagree with the idea of reducing debt.
Where it hurts now is not only have you hit people hard, you have taken their services away. I can talk about the services which should have remained and were promised by the last government. Obviously, the present government does not have much time for me, so goodbye pool and goodbye funding for Freds Pass Reserve.
However, I cannot say the closure of the Humpty Doo Fire Station is a good idea. It is more than a bus service. It is like the ambulance and the police. It is a service to protect our community and property, and the government has made a brutal decision based not on how many call-outs the Humpty Doo Fire Station has made, but because it is not willing to fund the staff required for the new Berrimah Fire Station. That is why there is a reduction in Palmerston, and staff are being taken from Humpty Doo. That is a dreadful indictment on this government’s attitude to the 20 000 people living in the rural area. You heard what the member for Goyder said about this decision: was your head screwed on when you made this decision? To add insult the government, during an election, gave Tracy Village Social and Sports Club $100 000.
It is beyond belief a government could close a fire brigade station. We have increased traffic from INPEX, and 24 hours a day you see trucks up and down the Arnhem Highway, the Stuart Highway, Howard Springs Road and Tulagi Road moving quantities of rock and gravel. Between 6 am and 9 am they mix with the traffic going to work. The same thing happens in the afternoon.
There have already been accidents with large trucks and the fire brigade is first on site with equipment although, as we know, the four-wheel drive emergency unit will be taken off the road and replaced with a large truck at Berrimah, which is further away. If there was an accident at the Bark Hut, the first people to attend would be the fire brigade from Humpty Doo. Admittedly, they are not there 24/7; they probably should be. They will attend and have the equipment if someone is trapped inside. Now the police will be first to attend and they do not have the equipment or expertise to help someone trapped in a vehicle. People will have to come from Palmerston and the truck will have to come from Berrimah. I cannot believe the government could make such a terrible decision. It does not say much for its opinion of people in the rural area.
That is what hurts me most. You can hit me if you cannot move on from the time I was, supposedly, kingmaker. If you cannot get over that and want to, theoretically, punish me by taking away some of the promises the previous government made - the swimming pool and helping Freds Pass - you live with that. To take away our fire station is the bottom line. The Chief Minister is going there on the weekend and I hope he listens to what we say. The firemen, the three local members - I thank the Chief Minister for inviting me - and the mayor will attend. I hope the Chief Minister will see this is a bad decision which lets the rural people down and people are cranky.
Another small thing, which will probably be debated next week, is the $20 fee at Motor Vehicle Registry. The minister has been announcing improvements and I congratulate him on that, but it was done without any thought.
I went to the Fibrecraft Guild and was laughed at by the Treasurer because I happened to be Father Christmas at their lunch; you wonder why that would be funny. They were telling me not everyone has a computer and not everyone wants to pay over the phone. There will be a debate on this next week and the minister is certainly bringing in changes. It highlights, again, the lack of compassion and thought that, for a small sum of money, affects the most vulnerable people in our community - some of our older pensioners - by hitting them with a $20 fee because they do not want to do things electronically. That is a shame.
I am advising you of a few things which really concern me. NAPCAN has been around for many years and looks after the welfare of children. If the government says it really supports child protection I will laugh. To reduce NAPCAN funding, an NGO organisation that has worked all over the Northern Territory for years and years - I went to Canteen Creek - I cannot think of the Aboriginal name – which has a big sign saying, ‘This is a NAPCAN town’. It was a place where NAPCAN helped establish ways of looking after children. It is not just in Darwin, it is across the whole of the Northern Territory. They were working with another company to provide a program which was part of recommendations to set up long-term programs for child protection throughout the Northern Territory. That, of course, was canned.
The other issue - this shows not everything about the cost of living is related to the budget - is about fish, of all things. I received a media release recently from Brian Manning of the Barramundi Fishermen’s Association letting me know the average punter who wants to buy barramundi and threadfin salmon will pay more as the fisheries have been moved so big boats can get further out to fish...
Mr Westra van Holthe: How do you know, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: Well, you read ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: The season has just started. There has been hardly any rain and the fishermen have not been able to catch much anyway.
Mr WOOD: Well, if you have to go out further ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: For goodness sake, if you are going to say something, say something credible.
Mr WOOD: Ask Brian Manning, he wrote the media release. I am repeating ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: His name is Peter Manning.
Mr WOOD: Peter Manning.
Mr Westra van Holthe: There is more than Peter Manning’s view in the fishing industry.
Mr WOOD: He says the price of fish will increase because you have to go further to get it. Does that not make sense? If you have to go further to get your fish the price of fish will increase? The government has made a decision to close the closer fisheries so they have to find a new place. They have not found a new place yet, by the way, but the price of fish will increase. That is a government decision and the cost of living is increasing.
The other thing I find difficult is when people talk about the group brought in to look at the debt and that the Under Treasurer was sacked. That shows, more or less, we did not trust her and needed to bring our own people in. I am not saying those people do not have expertise, but why sack the Under Treasurer? If she was such a bad person why would you re-employ her? If she is such a bad person why did she receive the Public Service Medal on Australia Day?
We sacked someone who has worked in Treasury as long as I have been in parliament, who I regard as apolitical. They remove the evidence. They then say, ‘We will bring in new people’, and many of those people are in some way associated with the old CLP government. Instead of trusting the Under Treasurer they sacked her. That gives a smell of, ‘We would rather bring our own people in so we can do what we like. If there are some difficulties in the budget we will sort it out’.
I had much faith in the Under Treasurer, Jennifer Prince. I do not believe things were hidden. I am not a great reader of budgets because they are, at times, written in a language similar to hieroglyphics. If you go through them with someone to help you, you will see we were going into debt. As the ex-Chief Minister said, that is what you would expect a budget to have written in it if we continued in the vein we were going.
This is not praising the Opposition Leader too much, but every year I would put a little …
Ms Lawrie: A wish list.
Mr WOOD: Yes, a wish list. I have done it every financial year and had a wish list of five things. I got one, the duplication of Howard Springs Road which is dragging on forever, but it is happening. I was told at the time, ‘You cannot have any more than that because we have to tighten our belts. The money spent last year was the most we have ever spent and we have to pull the budget back’.
I accepted we were coming in for tighter times. People were expecting the government would come back from the deficit. It is how you do it and what has hurt the most. You have penny-pinched on the $20 MVR fee and hit people so suddenly they have not had a chance to budget for it. I was laughed at by the member for Fong Lim for saying people would struggle to enjoy Christmas. That was the word from Vicki O’Halloran at Somerville - sometimes it would be better to take a reality check, talk to those people, and see what is happening in suburbia where people struggle to pay these charges.
There are many issues, but what has really upset people in the rural area is the closure of the fire brigade. People can accept the changes that the government wants to bring the budget back to surplus. They believe it is the wrong way; it is too harsh and is cutting back on essential services.
Another point about the Humpty Doo fire brigade is the Treasurer said, ‘It is only 100 call-outs’. The Chief Minister is trying to get the figures, but it is amazing the Treasurer says there were only 100 call outs. I asked for figures to compare with other fire stations and they cannot provide them. That means they have nothing to compare it with themselves.
They make a decision, plucked out of the air, which sounds good but they did not analyse what call outs there were. I am certain the Darwin fire service does not attend a large number of grass fires. It might do a few, but I can bet my bottom dollar Humpty Doo does. We need to see what is being said.
The real issue was not the 100 call-outs but the Berrimah Fire Station. We should remember services which save lives will not make money. They are provided as a service by us paying our taxes because we want the service. I can tell you now rural people want their fire brigade back. Over 4000 people signed the petition, one of the fastest petitions put together. The message is: if the government wants support it better do something about it because it will be struggling at the next election if it keeps making decisions like that.
I hope, on Saturday, the Chief Minister will see sense and tell the bean counters, ‘No, this will happen. The Humpty Doo fire brigade will not be disbanded’.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Division, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Is the division supported? It is not supported.
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 157, I wish my dissent to be recorded.
Madam SPEAKER: So noted, member for Sanderson.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Rescission
Move Motion of Rescission
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as wold prevent this House from rescinding the resolution of the Assembly in respect of the censure of the Chief Minister.
Motion agreed to.
RECISSION OF RESOLUTION
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly rescind the resolution in respect of censure of the Chief Minister.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 7
Mr Chandler Ms Fyles
Mr Elferink Mr Gunner
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Mr McCarthy
Mr Higgins Mr Vatskalis
Mr Kurrupuwu Mr Vowles
Mrs Lambley Ms Walker
Mr Mills
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
SERIOUS SEX OFFENDERS BILL 2013
(Serial 18)
(Serial 18)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the continued detention, or supervised release, of serious sex offenders who are deemed to be such a serious danger to the community that regulation of the offender is warranted post-sentence.
The community continues to be concerned about the danger posed by serious sex offenders when released back into the community after finishing their sentences. Recidivism rates amongst sex offenders are not significantly higher than for other types of offenders. However, the impact of their actions can have devastating effects on victims. The community expects government and the justice system to take actions for the purpose of minimising the possibility that such offenders will commit further sex offences. The community also expects government to make realistic, effective and genuine efforts to rehabilitate such offenders. Increasingly, the community expects government to monitor offenders to both deter offenders from committing future crimes and reduce their opportunities to commit further sex offences. These community concerns and expectations are justified and this bill is one important way this government can address them.
Currently, the NT only has one scheme that enables regulation of some serious sex offenders following the end of their period in prison. This is the scheme under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act. This scheme does not apply to offenders where victims of the offence committed were adults. The scheme only applies limited reporting and registration requirements and, in some cases, can prohibit certain activities. However, it cannot place positive obligations on offenders; for example, to attend programs, to live in certain places or undergo rehabilitation. Also, it cannot order post-release detention.
I introduced a similar bill in the previous parliament as shadow Attorney-General, which was defeated. I said at the time I would make the introduction of a similar regime a priority should I become Attorney-General. This bill delivers on that undertaking.
Legislation that allows for the detention or supervision of an offender post-sentence clearly touches on important legal principles. The concept of double jeopardy is one such principle which provides that a person should not be punished twice for the same offence. There are good reasons for such principle and the bill is not intended to undermine these well-established legal principles. Unfortunately, there are those rare individuals who pose a real danger of committing further offences of the worst type upon their release. Where these offenders can, with certainty be clearly identified, it is reasonable that the authorities be empowered to do something about it.
Mechanisms allowing for the detention or restraint of a person by the state, and which do not relate directly to the person’s conviction or sentence, already exist in the Territory and are well-accepted mechanisms within the legal system internationally.
For example, the Bail Act allows for the detention of people who have not been convicted of any offence. However, is it essential that any legislation creating a regime that allows for detention does not encroach to an unacceptable extent on the principles of the justice system and the rule of law. It must also contain safeguards and ensure the legislation is not abused.
These types of schemes have survived High Court challenges in other jurisdictions. The High Court has held the purpose and application of this type of legislation to be lawful. Further, if has held it is appropriate that the higher courts hear and determine such complex issues. We can safely rely on the Supreme Court to balance the right of individuals against the need for community protection.
The bill allows for the continued detention and supervision of offenders after their sentence has expired. The bill contains a range of safeguards to prevent the powers being abused. These include the need for two independent medical assessments, a comprehensive review process, and an extremely high burden of proof on the applicant.
I now turn to the details of the content of the Serious Sex Offenders Bill 2013. The operation of the bill is underpinned by a clear and strong objects clause. In making a decision under the bill, the court will be guided by the objects set out in clause 3. Clause 3 clarifies that the main purpose of the legislation is to enhance the safety and protection of the community, particularly victims of serious sex offences. The secondary purpose is to facilitate the treatment and rehabilitation of such offenders. The principles set out in the objects clause will guide the Supreme Court in making its decisions and are incorporated in the clauses dealing with the application processes.
The bill allows for the Attorney-General to make an application to the Supreme Court in relation to a serious sexual offender who is nearing the end of his or her sentence. The application must be within the period of 12 months before which the imprisonment sentence is due to end. The fact that a person may not be in custody because of parole, under a suspended sentence, home detention, or community custody does not affect the period in which an order can be sought.
For the court to make either a continuing detention order or supervision order it must be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender is a serious danger to the community. A convicted serious sex offender is a serious danger to the community if there is an unacceptable risk that the prisoner will commit a serious sexual offence if the prisoner is not detained in custody or subject to a supervision order.
It is important to note these detention and supervision powers will not, as a general rule, interfere with the parole process or any other process under which a person is released from prison prior to the time their prison sentence is due to expire. A person will be entitled to seek parole up to the point in time when an application is made for an order under this act.
The threshold test is also an important aspect of the legislation as it defines the offenders who may, potentially, be the subject of an application by the Attorney-General. As I have said, this legislation is not aimed at all sex offenders, only those who are likely to commit further sexual offences at the most serious end of the scale. In general terms, the threshold test in the bill is that it only captures prisoners who have been convicted of an offence of a sexual nature which is punishable by seven years or more imprisonment.
Attempts to commit any of the serious sexual offences will also be captured. So too will similar offences committed in other jurisdictions. The list of offences is set out in Schedule 1 to the bill. The Attorney-General will not be obliged to apply in relation to all prisoners who fall into the criteria of eligibility under the act. In other relevant Australian jurisdictions, assessment committees have been established to identify, assess and refer prisoners for orders. Most of these committees consist of government employees, including Corrections, police officers and health professionals. These committees monitor and assess serious sexual offenders while they are still under a sentence of imprisonment and advise the relevant Attorney-General as to the prisoners who truly pose a serious risk to the community.
This ensures the schemes are appropriately targeted and avoids costs associated with unnecessary court procedures. It is proposed to establish a similar vetting arrangement in the Northern Territory. The Department of Correctional Services will be responsible for developing the guidelines around the assessment of offenders for referral to me, or any of my successors as Attorney-General, for an application. The legislation will not commence before these administrative guidelines and supporting processes are in place.
My intention is that, other than in exceptional cases, applications will not be made unless a sex offender has committed three sex offences. I consider this kind of discretion should not be regulated by the legislation. Accordingly, the bill does not try to articulate how decisions about applications are to be made.
The other main aspects of the application process set out in the bill are:
application is to be to the Supreme Court - clause 23;
matters are to be determined by civil process;
interim orders can be made at preliminary hearings – clause 30;
two expert medical assessment reports to be required – clause 25(2)(b);
if a supervision order is breached, the Supreme Court has the power to revoke it and replace it with a continuing detention order, if necessary, as a result of a change in the prisoner’s circumstances;
the Supreme Court will be required to ensure, as far as possible, that supervision orders do not conflict with reporting requirements and orders under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act and may amend inconsistent prohibition orders under that act if appropriate;
the ability exists for both parties to appeal to the Court of Appeal - Part 10.
It is important to also note the legislation will apply to offenders convicted prior to the commencement of the legislation. It will apply to them if, at the time of commencement, they are in goal or are on parole under some kind of supervisory order. Also, the legislation will apply to persons who were under the age of 18 years at the time of an offence if they are in prison or under parole for some other kind of supervision order when they turn 18 years of age.
They are the main elements of the application process. However, there are some other matters that warrant more detailed explanation.
The bill provides that continuing detention orders are ongoing indefinite orders, similar to the approach in Queensland and Western Australia. However, it is important to note that in accordance with Part 6 of the bill, continuing detention orders must be reviewed by the Supreme Court at least every two years. This is longer than the review period in Queensland and Western Australia, which both require annual reviews. My view, and that of both the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice and the Department of Correctional Services, is that an inflexible one-year review period is unreasonably short and may not be necessary for all prisoners. On the other hand, I recognise the need for a robust review process and safeguards in the legislation that allow for ongoing detention of offenders beyond their sentence date.
As well as the biennial review proposed in the bill, additional safeguards will apply which allow a prisoner to apply for a review at any stage with the leave of the court - clause 66. Additionally, the court will always have the power to specify a shorter review period of one year or more in the actual continuing detention order if it thinks fit.
In relation to supervision orders, there is a list of mandated requirements that have to be included in each order. These requirements are fairly similar across the other jurisdictions and are contained in clause 18 of the bill. These include requirements around reporting, complying with the directions of the parole officer concerning place of residence and place of work, not leaving the Territory without the permission of a parole officer, and not committing a further sex offence.
The court will also be able to impose other requirements it thinks appropriate, for example:
for the prisoner’s rehabilitation, care or treatment;
to protect victims, their families and others the court considers require special protection, such as work colleagues of a victim or children in a particular community.
Parole officers will be able to issue directions under clause 20 not inconsistent with the order relating to victims, their families, or other persons. For example, a parole officer could direct the prisoner to move on if they are in a public place where the victim is also attending.
Clause 46 provides it is an offence to fail to comply with a supervision order punishable by a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units or imprisonment for two years. This means the offence itself, being a summary offence, can be dealt with by a magistrate, but any proceeding relating to a reconsideration of the supervision order itself - under Part 5 Division 2 of the bill - as a result of a contravention must still be conducted in the Supreme Court. Both police and parole officers will be empowered to apply to a magistrate for warrants of arrest or a summons to appear before a Supreme Court if they are of the view there has been a breach.
Offences committed whilst on supervision that might lead to revocation of the supervision order include both the serious sexual offences set out in Schedule 1 of the bill and the offences set out in Schedule 2 of the bill. The offences set out in Schedule 2 are still relevantly serious offences, however, are not offences that might lead to the view that a person who has committed them is a serious danger to the community. They are considered to be of relevance if committed by a person who has already committed a serious sexual offence and who has being assessed by the Supreme Court as a serious danger to the community. In that situation, it is considered that a breach of a Schedule 2 offence is sufficient to warrant reconsideration by the court of the supervision order.
There are only three offences in this bill, being: the breach of a supervision order offence in clause 46; the offence, by a person the subject of an order in clause 108, of changing their name without permission of the Director of Correctional Services; and breach of confidentiality – clause 112. The offences have been drafted to ensure compliance with the criminal responsibility provisions of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act.
The bill also amends the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act so as to deal with the registration, or attempted registration, of a name change in breach of clause 104. In that case, the Director of Correctional Services can direct the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to either not make the amendment or, if necessary, reverse the amendment.
The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act, Criminal Code Act, Parole of Prisoners Act, Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, Victims of Crime Rights and Services Act and the Surveillance Devices Regulations.
This government is pleased to be able implement these reforms and provide a level of protection and comfort to the community that has been sorely lacking. The bill fills a gap in the system and allows the Supreme Court to respond to a danger in the community in a way it has not been able to do before.
While this bill may be about community safety generally, fundamentally it is all about victims and protecting them, not just existing victims of sexual assault but victims who can never be identified; those that might have existed in the future but for the operation of this legislation.
I have already mentioned I attempted to bring this reform forward in 2001 and was unsuccessful. The refusal of the previous government to implement such a regime was to the detriment of all Territorians. I am pleased to make this one of my first major reforms as Attorney-General. This government remains committed to protecting the most vulnerable in our society, particularly children and victims of crime, and this is one important step in enhancing and ensuring community safety.
This bill reflects similar regimes in at least four other Australian jurisdictions. These regimes have successfully survived challenges in the High Court and the law surrounding the issues in this bill is now settled.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES) BILL
(Serial 12)
(Serial 12)
Continued from 29 November 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2012 before the House today sees the CLP election commitment being delivered. The Attorney-General was very clear about that in his second reading speech. I want to be very clear at the outset that, like members on the government benches, we do not accept violent crime and believe members of our community have a right to feel safe and protected and the provision of that is a key government responsibility.
That is why, in 2008, the Labor government under then Attorney-General Dr Chris Burns, introduced the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill which fulfilled a policy election commitment to Territorians with a clear position. Its intent was to send a message to Territorians that Labor recognised its responsibility to protect members of the community, and an even stronger message to would-be violent offenders that if you cause someone actual harm there will be consequences; you will go to gaol first time, no second chances.
We are opposing this bill because we do not believe it will work any better than the bad, flawed and notorious mandatory sentencing regime introduced by the CLP in the late 1990s for property offences which became a game changer and was pivotal in seeing the CLP lose the election to Labor in 2001. The impact of that widely-condemned CLP property offender’s legislation which introduced mandatory sentencing was stark and, quoting from a document the name of which I will tell you in a moment, it accounted for up to 15% of the adult prison population at the time of its operation:
- After the legislation was repealed in 2011 it became apparent that the proportion of sentencing occasions resulting in imprisonment was 50% higher during the period the legislation was in operation than in the period immediately after its repeal.
The impact of the bill which will pass through this House today will not see crime decrease. If anything, it is more likely to see it increase as police will be less inclined to charge and prosecute offenders and will seek instead, where they can, to make a lesser charge and offenders are far more likely to plead not guilty. We know when the system sees a flaw in the system the system works around it.
This bill is pretending to be tough on crime. It will send people straight to gaol and will set many offenders, particularly Indigenous offenders, up for a life of being locked up because it is at the other end of the spectrum of justice reinvestment. How will the most disadvantaged escape the cycle?
The Attorney-General will dismiss the opposition’s position on this bill, but worse, he ignores the position and all the evidence of experts and their cumulative years of experience and knowledge.
I wish to place on the record an extract from a letter I quoted yesterday from NAAJA dated 27 November 2012, addressed to the Attorney-General and a copy provided to me:
- NAAJA strongly opposes the introduction of this bill.
Experience of mandatory sentencing tells us that it will have a disproportionate impact on Aboriginal people. The grossly disproportionate rate of incarceration of Aboriginal people in the NT is already a national disgrace. Mandatory sentencing only serves to worsen this situation.
NAAJA supports evidence-based law reform to address an identified policy gap or deficiency in the current law. However, there is no evidence that mandatory minimum sentences deter offenders from committing crime, reduce crime rates or impact positively on rates of recidivism. There is also no evidence that sentences in the NT for violent crimes are too lenient.
- The proposed amendments to the Sentencing Act will lead to unjust sentences. They will also introduce significant inefficiencies in the administration of justice as they will deter cooperation with police and prosecutions and result in significantly more people contesting their charges against them. This was the experience of mandatory sentencing in the 1990s. Such laws interfered with the administration of justice and resulted in significant unfairness to many.
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER: I now turn to an article prepared by Mr Russell Goldflam, President of the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory. The article appeared in the NT Law Society publication titled Balance in December 2012 called, It ain’t broke, so for goodness sake, don’t fix it. Mr Goldflam refers to attending one of the forums held - not in Nhulunbuy because it is not on the Stuart Highway - by the Department of Justice to inform interested stakeholders about these changes. According to the article, the Attorney-General took the opportunity to personally answer a question from the floor as to the purpose of the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2012:
- ‘Deterrence and retribution’, he said. Mr Elferink continued in this vein (‘clear message’, ‘genuine gaol time’, tougher sentences’) when he introduced the bill to the Legislative Assembly on 29 November 2012. He also said this: ‘The purpose of setting the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill is to maintain a consistent standard for sentencing for violent offences’.
- So, will these laws lead to improved deterrence, retribution or consistency?
Mr Goldflam went on:
- Deterrence?
No.
He said, quoting an eminent authority in this area:
- The practice of imposing harsher sentences to discourage other offenders from committing the same or similar offences does not work. The additional pain that is inflicted on offenders to pursue this objective has no positive social effects and is therefore pointless.
A reference for that quote is Mirko Bagaric and Theo Alexander. It is referenced in this document and I will seek leave to table it shortly.
Back to the article by Mr Goldflam:
- Retribution?
No.
- … a basic principle of sentencing law is that a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court should never exceed that which is justified as proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances.
Mr Goldflam then said:
- Mandatory minimum sentences prevent courts from applying the principle of proportionality. And that is why, as Mildren J stated in a case dealing with a previous Northern Territory mandatory sentencing regime, ‘prescribed minimum mandatory sentencing provisions are the very antithesis of just sentences’.
Mr Goldflam then asked the question:
- Consistency?
No. Mandatory sentencing is also the antithesis of individualised sentencing. All offenders are subject to the same minimum sentence, which means some will get more than they justly deserve, while others won’t. That produces inconsistency and infects the judicial process with arbitrariness ...
He then went on to quote Blokland J. I will not include it because I have said enough.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the article I have quoted from.
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER: Finally, I make reference to the retiring Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Richard Coates – a man with almost three decades’ experience in law - and his recent interview on the ABC 7.30 program. He said judges and courts should have discretion in sentencing because, generally, courts get it right and they should be able to exercise their discretion. He also said one size does not fit all and if a sentence is too tough or too lenient there are avenues for appeal.
The opposition members are not the only ones concerned with the direction the new Attorney-General is taking the new CLP government and law reform. Decisions are made not on evidence but on the world view of the sometimes weird and wonderful member for Port Darwin, who no doubt brings many life experiences to the job - experiences he has shared openly on the floor of this House, including his 20 years as a policeman, his personal battles in life and, of course, his studies in law which have seen him graduate with a law degree. I must also add getting work experience when he robed up to assist the Solicitor-General as the legal water boy; a most unusual and unconventional move, and one which has raised the eyebrows of many in the legal fraternity and earned him ridicule amongst some circles.
The Attorney-General’s experiences and insights into the world, society, the state and frailty of the human condition and the law allow him to bring to debates views based more on personal opinion and less on hard evidence and fact. I know he will dispute that rigorously.
In the Attorney-General’s media release of 29 November 2012 regarding introduction of the bill around assaults on workers which was passed yesterday, he said:
- The Assault on Workers Bill sends a very clear message that our community will not tolerate violence against workers.
The Attorney-General’s mandatory sentencing bills send a very clear message to the judiciary that they are not to be trusted and not capable of doing their jobs.
The opposition will be opposing this bill, as we presented very similar bills when in government and the CLP was in opposition. The first was when we opposed the amendments to the September 2008 bill by the then shadow Attorney-General for the CLP opposition, Ms Jodeen Carney who said:
- … we will support their bill because some improvements are made. We just do not think they have gone far enough.
It remains our position, sitting on the opposition benches, that we do not support a bill which introduces a very complex sentencing regime of minimum mandatory sentences, removes the discretion of the court to suspend a part of the minimum sentence, and removes the rising of the court.
I place on the record the sentencing guidelines under the Sentencing Act, Part 2 in section 5. General principles. There are six principles:
(1) The only purposes for which sentences may be imposed on an offender are the following:
- (a) to punish the offender to an extent or in a way that is just in all the circumstances;
These guidelines are good and, I am sure, accurate. However, we know there has been, through the Attorney-General’s very tough approach to law and order, an emphasis more on punishment than anything else. I am not convinced the Attorney-General can fulfil his responsibility and obligations to meet parts (b) and (c) with regard to helping the offender rehabilitate and discourage reoffending respectively.
The courts and the corrections system must have the resources and tools to deliver these important principles of the act. How does he propose to do this? I am not assured by the joint media release dated 6 February from the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health that rehabilitation and punishment are, ‘complementary’.
While I am talking about the offender and the Sentencing Act, I also place on the record that this bill is about innocent members of the community who become victims of violent crime. That remains uppermost in the opposition’s mind. We are talking about victims of crime and the need to address that.
I return to the Sentencing Act and the general principles and sentencing guidelines. I want to highlight Part 2 section 5(2) which says:
- In sentencing an offender, a court must have regard to:
There are 17 considerations. I will not go through all of them, just a few:
- In sentencing an offender, a court must have regard to:
...
(e) the offender’s character, age and intellectual capacity; and
(f) the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factor concerning the offender; and
Perhaps the Attorney-General could explain in his wrap whether he will be making further amendments to the Sentencing Act because, in light of minimum mandatory sentencing, it seems these principles cannot all be taken into account by the court under the proposed changes to this bill.
What of the cost to government and taxpayers associated with mandatory sentencing? There is no doubt we will see more people in prisons as a result of this bill. The cost to taxpayers will be around about $20 000 for offenders serving the minimum three-month sentence and will rise to $110 000 for offenders serving 12 months.
Another consequence of this bill is we will see a massive increase of not guilty pleas if defendants know pleading will automatically get them a minimum gaol sentence. A direct result of an increase in not guilty pleas will see an increase in workloads for police, courts and prosecutors, and there will be more costs and even more stress on the courts. The backlog of cases will take longer to reach an outcome
The real winners will be defence lawyers. It again highlights this bill is not only a poor and ill-informed justice reform, it is bad fiscal policy.
After Labor’s amendment to the Sentencing Act in 2008, the 2009 budget saw an additional funding boost of $3.3m to ensure the Territory’s prosecution resources, court capacity and witness assistance services could deal with additional and anticipated pressure on the system. In the Attorney-General’s media release of 4 December 2012 in relation to the mini-budget, he outlined the allocation of $1.29m ongoing from 2012-13 for court support services and $650 000 ongoing from 2012-13 to support the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, I am unclear how you intend to provide adequate and ongoing resources to address a tsunami of need and resources for courts and prisons once this bill is enacted.
I am also concerned an unintended consequence of this bill will be domestic violence victims who might be reluctant to testify as victims knowing the result will be a gaol sentence for a partner or breadwinner. Perhaps we will see a reluctance of victims reporting, even though reporting is mandatory for domestic violence, for fear of knowing it will mean a minimum mandatory sentence.
Further, in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech he stated the bill provided the court may take into account a victim impact statement before sentencing, and it may include the victims wishes for the court to sentence the offender leniently.
The Attorney-General ended by saying whether a victim’s wishes are taken into account as an exceptional circumstance will be entirely a matter for the court. I wonder if we might see an increase in the number of victims expressing those wishes.
The amendments give rise to a minor consequential amendment of the Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment – SMART - Court. The amendment is little more than a typographical renumbering change. However, I will speak briefly about the SMART Court given the Attorney-General, without consultation, evaluation or evidence as to its success or otherwise in its 18-month existence, announced as part of last year’s slash and burn exercise - the mini-budget - that this court would be abolished.
I am aware the SMART Court is not an option for violent offenders, nor is it a soft option. The decision to abolish it and save $4.2m per year by 2014-15 is symptomatic of a government and an Attorney-General out of touch with reality and contemporary justice reform and would see us return to being the only jurisdiction in the country without this avenue for non-violent offenders.
The principle behind the SMART Court is to keep people out of the correction system and get to the heart of the offending; namely, alcohol and substance misuse.
There is overwhelming evidence courts such as the SMART Court reduce recidivism and save money in the long term. That evidence comes from the existence of drug courts in Australia for more than 12 years, and also places such as the United States, which developed drug courts more than two decades ago and now has 2700 such courts.
We will discuss this further when the inevitable bill comes before the House seeking to repeal the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral Treatment Court) Act 2011. That will be another backwards day in the history of law reform in the Territory.
I am curious to understand the level of consensus in the ranks of the government around policy direction. Is the Attorney-General an influential character around the Cabinet table? I suspect he is. Does the party work consensually so backbencher’s views are taken into consideration? Do all members of the new government believe this tough new regime of mandatory sentencing is a good and right thing to do - locking more people up will deliver good outcomes?
That is not the case according to Alice Springs News Online, which reported on the pre-election Meet the Candidates forum in Alice Springs hosted by the Chamber of Commerce where the member for Braitling was asked a clear question about mandatory sentencing and delivered an answer which clearly demonstrated he opposes it and is at odds with the Attorney-General.
I will read from the transcript posted by the journalist who reported, Kiernan Finnane on 8 August which provides verbatim the exchange between a member of the public at the forum, Mrs Trish Van Dijk and the member from Braitling, with a final comment thrown in by the member for Greatorex.
Mrs Van Dijk asked:
- I would like to ask Adam Giles and the CLP generally, but to Adam Giles perhaps, given that the prison is absolutely chock-a-block and overcrowded to the maximum, and given that there are 90% or thereabouts of Indigenous people in the prison, and I know law and order is a big [item on your agenda], would you be considering bringing back mandatory sentencing which would exacerbate the matter to an almost impossible rate. And probably do no good because the recidivism out at the prison is very, very high too. So, given that it’s a legal challenge that maybe mandatory sentencing is not legal, would the CLP be pursuing that agenda as they have promised to do?’
The member for Braitling replied:
- Thanks, Trish, for the question. No, we won’t be pursuing mandatory sentencing. I can say I am emotionally disturbed by the level of Indigenous incarceration and the recidivism rate. I think in 2012 in a nation such as Australia the level of Indigenous incarceration is appalling. I’ve been around politics long enough, I know that if it was a Liberal Government and this was happening, Labor would be singing from the rafters, absolutely bagging us about what was happening
We lock up black Territorians seven times more than they ever did under Apartheid in South Africa and [inaudible]. It is disturbing what is happening. There are fundamental problems in our social psyche across the Territory. We know many of those issues and we’ve got to put in place reform at the structural level to try to fix some of these things … We want to try and help people, we don’t want those people ending up through the prison system which is what’s happening now as a result of breaking into people’s houses or commercial premises to get grog. It’s not working under the current alcohol regime. All we’re doing is locking up black Territorians and I’m not happy with it.
Mrs Van Dijk asked another question:
- So is that a definitive no?
Member for Braitling:
- No, right at the start, no.
Then the member for Greatorex said:
- No, it’s not happening.
Do they share the views of the member for Braitling, or do they agree minimum mandatory sentences are a good thing knowing Indigenous people already represent 80% of the prison population? Does the member for Arafura believe this is good law reform? What about the member for Arnhem? How about the member for Stuart? Member for Daly, I am sure you have a view on this. Surely the member for Namatjira, who is also the Minister for Indigenous Advancement, will speak in this debate. I am interested to hear the views of these members, as I am sure their constituents would. Speaking in this debate does not mean calling out interjections, it means speaking up for the people who have put their faith in you to represent their interests.
Perhaps when they speak in this debate they might enlighten us as to how minimum mandatory sentencing advances the interests of Indigenous Territorians? Do they seriously believe it will act as a deterrent and break the cycle of recidivist offending amongst some of the Territory’s more disadvantaged people? Are they comfortable with the fact this legislation will see even more Indigenous people locked up in gaol? The member for Braitling was very clear about the fact, ‘all we are doing is locking up black Territorians’.
Differing CLP party wing positions on mandatory sentencing aside, it is clear the CLP is all at sea when it comes to united and consensual approaches. One only needs to look at the train wreck which has ensued since the dismantling of the Banned Drinker Register and the apparent tussle between the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health as to who really owns the yet-to-be-seen habitual drunks policy. Will we have people with alcohol misuse problems locked up in mandatory detention and treated as criminals? The Minister for Health is on the record naming detention facilities. Will they be treated as sick people in need of treatment in a clinical facility as opposed to a corrections facility?
Either way, the CLP government, far from removing problem drunks from our streets, has allowed 2500 problem drinkers previously on the Banned Drinker Register to now have open slather access to grog and they are most definitely back on the streets causing problems and contributing to alcohol-fuelled crime, including assaults…
Mrs Price interjecting.
Ms WALKER: I hear your interjections, member for Stuart, and I look forward to your comments being placed on the record in your contribution.
As long as the CLP dithers in this area we will see the problem drinkers feature largely in this new and very tough mandatory sentencing regime which will pass into law. We know, and the government knows, alcohol is at the core of around 70% of offending behaviour.
Labor was dealing effectively with alcohol through the Enough is Enough reforms, and the Banned Drinker Register was an important part of that. Everybody except the CLP seemed to recognise that. When I say everybody I mean lawyers, the judiciary, the police, NAAJA, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the NT, all the NGOs and peak organisations representing Indigenous people like the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition and Dr John Boffa and the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory. Let us add the vast majority of ordinary Territorians who have jumped online, written letters to the editor and called talkback radio.
I have focused on the general and negative ramifications and consequences the opposition sees in this bill. I am sure lawyers from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice have done a fine job technically in drafting this bill with the exception of a late discovery. The Attorney-General found a drafting error and we have amendments before the House.
I thank the Attorney-General’s office and officers from the agency for providing me with very thorough briefings not only on this bill, but other bills currently before or passed through the House.
However, from the basis of sound public policy based on evidence and in the realm of jurisprudence, this bill takes law reform backwards to the bad days of the CLP of old. There exists overwhelming evidence that mandatory minimum sentences do not deter offenders, reduce recidivism, affect retribution because the principle of proportionality is overwritten, and such laws do not enable consistency, in fact, quite the opposite. Far from the CLP’s election promise to reduce crime by 10%, we are likely to see crime increase.
Mr Deputy Speaker, when in opposition, the now CLP government said it did not believe Labor’s amendments to the Sentencing Act went far enough. We believe they go too far.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her contribution to an important bill with important ramifications. I am sad more people are not contributing or listening to this debate. This goes to the heart of our justice system and I hoped more people would contribute. I do not support the bill and will explain why as I go through my contribution.
You would expect legislation brought before this parliament to be based on sound reasoning; real evidence is needed and a proper analysis of present legislation to see if it is working, rather than just an election promise aimed at the uninformed. This legislation fails completely on all the key ingredients except the election promise. To understand why this legislation fails you need to go no further than the second reading by the chief lawmaker, the Attorney-General. In the second reading he said:
- ... the Country Liberals promised that if elected we would introduce a bill to amend the Sentencing Act to make it clear that offenders convicted of serious assault would not be eligible for a suspended sentence. We promised also to introduce new mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for repeat offenders, namely, that genuine gaol time will be imposed for repeat offenders.
The purpose of setting the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill is to maintain a consistent standard for sentencing of violent offences. It is intended to send a clear message to serious and repeat violent offenders that if they commit a violent offence they will serve genuine gaol time and that there is a mandated bottom line to the sentence that they will receive.
As you can see, this legislation was based on a political election promise. The government said there will now be genuine gaol time, a consistent standard for sentencing, and a mandated bottom line. It sounds good to the uninformed: tough on crime stuff, a standard clich to win elections.
However, the Attorney-General has not shown evidence there is a real problem with sentencing as it is. He has no facts and figures to show those already convicted of a violent offence have received inadequate sentences. I received a briefing - and I appreciate the briefing from the department – where I asked for some facts and figures on sentencing. I have not seen those facts and figures. It surprises me that, if I do not have the facts and figures, why they were not used in the second reading.
The Attorney-General - who now works in the Supreme Court in his spare time - must know you need hard evidence to win a case. Guess what? He has not produced the hard evidence to show sentences for violent crimes have been inadequate. He has told the uninformed public what they see and hear in the media must be true: violent offenders are getting off scot-free therefore the government, to overcome the lack of adequate sentencing by judges and magistrates, will ensure people go to gaol by introducing mandatory sentencing.
The reality of the situation is far from what the Attorney-General wants to hear because, regardless of the truth, he cannot afford to go back on his political promise no matter how silly and nonsensical it is. Breaking a promise would be too humiliating. The Attorney-General knows we have an appeal system where, if a sentence is regarded as too mild or too harsh, the DPP can appeal. If the independent DPP believes the sentence for a violent crime is too lenient it will appeal. That is the process used for centuries but it is not mentioned in this debate, even though the Attorney-General mentions our judicial tradition quite often during debates in this House. If a judge or magistrate hands down a sentence based on the facts of the case and the requirements of the Sentencing Act, if others do not agree with the decision there can be an appeal, even all the way to the High Court.
Let us look at some facts I have been able to obtain. The Northern Territory Director of Public Prosecutions Annual Report said in 2011-12 there were 2021 new matters before the court and 68 appeals. The year before, 1482 matters were before the court and 64 appeals. In 2009-10, there were 1603 matters before the court and 57 appeals. Around 3.3% to 4.5% of total cases were appealed.
You then break that into cases reflecting Level 5 offences - as in the new bill - to see how many matters were referred to the courts and what percentage of those cases were appealed by the DPP. I expect it to be very low. It shows the Director of Public Prosecutions, the independent arbiter on the adequacy of sentencing, believes sentences are appropriate.
If this legislation is passed - which says sentencing is inadequate and too lenient - the Attorney-General, a lawyer himself, is saying he knows more than the judges and magistrates who give out the sentences, and the DPP, which not only gives advice during a trial on sentencing, but also appeals if the sentence is inadequate or too lenient.
It may be worth reading an extract from the DPP’s 2010-11 Annual Report under ‘Guidelines of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ which states:
- 17 Crown Appeals Against Sentence
17.1 The prosecutor must assess any sentence imposed. If (and only if) it is considered to be appellable or it is a matter likely to attract significant public interest, a report should be provided promptly to the Director’s Chambers for determination as to whether or not an appeal will be institute.;
…
17.3 The Director may appeal against the inadequacy of a sentence which has been imposed. There are no time limits but, in practice, the Office commences appeals expeditiously, preferably within 28 days of sentence.
17.4 In determining whether or not to appeal against a sentence imposed by a judge or magistrate, the Director will have regard to the following matters:
- (1) whether or not the sentencer made a material error of law or fact, misunderstood or misapplied proper sentencing principles, or wrongly assessed or omitted to consider some salient feature of the evidence, apparent from the remarks on sentence;
(2) manifest inadequacy of the sentence which may imply an error of principle by the sentence;
(4) The conduct of the proceedings at first instance, including the prosecutor’s opportunity to be heard and the conduct of its case;
(5) the appeal court’s residual discretion not to intervene, even if the sentence is considered too lenient; and.
(6) whether the appeal is considered likely to succeed.
It is clear the DPP is doing its job as required ; it is scrutinising the adequacy of sentences. Why are we passing a law which tells the DPP it does not do its job properly? Today, the Attorney-General wants to pass a law on the basis of inadequate sentences are being handed out but brings no evidence to prove his case.
Also, he wants to ensure offenders receive a consistent sentence regardless of knowing any of the facts of the case, meaning they will receive at least three months imprisonment. There is no reasoning why three months has been chosen. Why could it not be one week, one month or six months? There is no definition of genuine gaol time, it is just a slogan. Why should you have a consistent sentence? Surely, each case before the court is dealt with on its merits in the circumstances meaning, logically, the sentence of each case would or could be different, definitely not consistent.
It is also strange more serious crimes highlighted under Schedule 2 of the proposed new bill, such as terrorism, contribution towards an act of terrorism, manslaughter, attempted murder, etcetera, do not have mandatory sentencing. Does that mean the Attorney-General accepts judges are handing out adequate sentences for those violent offences? Why change the system for other violent offences? Does this not show inconsistency in sentencing, the opposite of what the Attorney-General said in his second reading?
In a High Court case, Palling v Corfield, 1970, Justice Barwick – Justice Barwick would fit the definition I gave yesterday regarding learning and wisdom – said:
- Ordinarily the Court with the duty of imposing punishment has a discretion as to the extent of the punishment to be imposed; and sometimes a discretion whether any punishment at all should be imposed. It is both unusual and in general, in my opinion, undesirable that the Court should not have a discretion in the imposition of penalties and sentences, for circumstances alter cases and it is a traditional function of a Court of justice to endeavour to make the punishment appropriate to the circumstances as well as to the nature of the crime.
The other disappointing matter which arises from this bill is the lack of support for the magistrates and judges, the people the Attorney-General, our first lawmaker, would support and trust to carry out justice. By introducing this bill without supporting evidence, he says he does not trust judges and magistrates to pass adequate sentences for violent crimes without checking to see if that is the case. By telling judges they must sentence a person to gaol for three months, he now takes over the role of judge. Without any knowledge of the circumstances of the case, the Attorney-General has decided every case will be the same because they will receive a minimum of three months.
What communication has the Attorney-General had with judges and magistrates over these changes? Could the Attorney-General point me to anyone in that esteemed group who supports this bill? Is there an issue in regard to the separation of powers?
The other reason the Attorney-General wants to introduce this new law is also highlighted in the second reading where he stated:
- The public does not expect actual imprisonment to mean that the offender can be released immediately; the public expects it to mean genuine gaol time as punishment for the violent offence committed.
Does the public really know that is the case? Are they relying on what the government, the Attorney-General or the media tells them, which infers judges and magistrates are too lenient when sentencing offenders and are out of touch? Unfortunately, the Attorney-General is using this lack of knowledge about the facts for his own political purposes. The idea of piggybacking on the opinion of an uninformed public was well used in an election campaign. ‘We need to be tougher on crime’. Now he has to show he is. Why do I say the public are uninformed and the media is partly to blame for the lack of understanding of sentencing?
Let us look at a real case study in Tasmania reported in a paper – Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice. The article was called Public Judgement on Sentencing: Final Results from the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study by Kate Warner, Julia Davis, Maggie Walter, Rebecca Bradfield and Rachel Vermey. There is not enough time to go into all the details of this study but, in a nutshell, public opinion surveys have consistently found 70% to 80% of respondents believe sentences are too lenient, suggesting judges are out of touch with the people.
Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Gleeson, therefore suggested instead of surveying uninformed members of the public it might be more useful if jurors, as more informed members of the public, were asked about sentences in cases they may have deliberated on. The Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study surveyed 698 jurors from 138 trials between September 2007 and October 2009. I am only quoting some paragraphs because it is too long to report tonight.
Under the heading Attitude Towards Judges it said:
- Just as 90 per cent of jurors thought that the sentence imposed by the judge was appropriate, a substantial majority of 83 per cent also thought that judges were in touch with public opinion. In contrast with representative surveys that have found that only 18-20 per cent of respondents thought that judges were in touch with the public (Hough & Roberts 1998; Mirlees-Black 2001), jurors in this study who all had first-hand contact with judges were much less likely to say that judges were out of touch.
The conclusion said:
- The final results of the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study confirm the preliminary findings reported in an earlier paper (Warner et al. 2009) which suggested that representative surveys cannot be taken at face value. The results show that a substantial majority of jurors with firsthand experience of judges consider that sentences are appropriate and that judges are in touch public opinion. By surveying members of the public who have engaged directly with the criminal justice system in a much more meaningful way than those who form their perceptions secondhand via the mass media, the study has shown that the jury survey methodology provides a better approach to finding a reliable source of informed public judgment of judicial sentencing.
The study has also shown that there is value in engaging jury members by giving them more information about sentencing patterns and crime trends and by informing them of the judges’ reasons for the sentences that they have imposed. The method has the potential to further explore differences in informed public opinion about the seriousness of different offence types and to investigate the contrast between punitiveness as measured by sentence choice in an individual case with the responses to an abstract question on general sentencing levels.
This document shows a table for jurors’ view on violent crime. These are the informed people. A total of 92% said the sentence was either very appropriate or fairly appropriate, whilst 8% said the sentence was either fairly inappropriate or very inappropriate. This shows if the public is informed and knows the facts they genuinely support the appropriateness of the judge’s sentence, but if the public is not informed they are used by the government. This information is reinforced by the media. The government did not want the public to be informed because it did not suit their political strategy during an election. Now they have won the election they still do not want the public to be informed.
The government has not brought any evidence to this debate. The majority of sentences given by Northern Territory judges and magistrates have been inappropriate. This is a case of keeping people in the dark to suit a political agenda.
The government is not the only one to blame. A paper presented to the Judicial Conference of Australia in 2011 said:
- Rigorous research over decades and across many countries, including Australia, conducted by properly qualified experts, has produced consistent results. Among these is a conclusion which is beyond rational challenge. It is that the media is selective in its reporting about sentences. It selects stories, and aspects of stories, with the aim of entertaining rather than informing. In particular, it either ignores entirely, or submerges, the opinions of bodies such as sentencing advisory councils which were established by parliaments ...
I do not believe we have one here:
- ... to facilitate the dissemination of accurate sentencing data and to provide advice, education and information to the community on sentencing issues. These bodies could be expected to provide a different, but particularly well informed, perspective.
The result is that public misconceptions are rife.
Further on the paper said:
- Those who appear in the courts are entitled to be secure in the knowledge that the judge or magistrate will not be influenced by the fact that one of the parties may be more powerful or more influential than the other. The power of the powerful, among whom may be the watching media, must be neutralised at the courthouse door, so that all who enter do so as equals. It must not matter to the court that, for example, one party to the case is the government and the other a mere citizen without means; that one is a large and wealthy corporation and the other a battling sole trader; or that one is the Crown and the other an accused from the streets. All those who have an interest in court proceedings, including criminals about to be sentenced, should have confidence that the judge or magistrate will not bow to the will of the powerful, or bend with the shifting winds of community sentiment.
Finally, it said:
- That confidence rests on the obedience of all judges and magistrates to their oath or affirmation of judicial office. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the effect that an informed public agrees with the sentences generally handed down by the courts, no judicial officer could, consistently, with that oath or affirmation, seek in sentencing to appease perceived public concerns generated by powerful media interests whose aim is to attract an audience by stories about sentencing which tend to show that the courts are unjustifiably lenient.
No civilised system of justice can tolerate the punishment of offenders on the basis of false precepts propounded by a powerful media. It follows that, while being astute to correct particular instances of unjustified leniency, the judiciary is in duty bound to sentence without regard to media claims that the public demands harsher punishments across the board.
That applies to the government too and is why this bill is so wrong. It is based on perpetuating an uninformed view of sentencing.
What else is wrong with this bill? There are likely to be many unintended consequences. How will this bill deal with people with mental health problems? It will cause lengthy delays in the process and the discretion of the court will move to the police. There will be a practical impact because of the increasing number of not guilty pleas as people will chance their luck in getting off otherwise they will get three months gaol. How will this reduce costs? There will be more time tied up in courts. Has the government budgeted for it?
Victims of crime will now be scared to testify because if they testify against the partner, that person will get three months and they will be blamed. They will be frightened and will suffer retribution. The offender will not see the judge as the person who has applied the mandatory sentencing but the partner, and there is a likelihood the victim will then not want to give evidence.
I will also mention some points raised by Justice Mildren in his book Big Boss Fella All Same Judge, which is relevant to this bill. On page 90 - I mentioned some of this yesterday - he wrote about mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory in 1933 where it covered murder, three years; rape, four years; carnal knowledge of a female under the age of 12, four years; abortion, three years; setting fire to a church or dwelling, seven years; setting fire to crops, three years; armed robbery, three years; burglary, three years; and the maximum penalty for murder was life and a court had the power to have someone whipped.
On page 128, Justice Mildren said as far as mandatory minimum terms are concerned these were abolished, except in the case of murder by a non-Aborigine, by the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Bill 1939. I raise this because it seems this bill is taking us back to the long distant past.
The other matter relevant to this bill is mentioned by Justice Mildren on pages 309 and 310, where he criticised mandatory minimum sentencing and raised the issue of home detention, something this bill rules out as a form of imprisonment. I read from that book:
- Imposing a requirement for a mandatory conviction and sentence of imprisonment, albeit that no minimum period is prescribed, for serious sexual offences, is plainly window dressing. There has only been one occasion of a fully suspended sentence of imprisonment for rape in the whole history of the court. It seems strange that the legislation imposes a requirement to convict for ‘violent offences’ and impose an actual sentence of imprisonment that cannot be wholly suspended, because the courts are left in a position of sometimes having to impose a short sentence of imprisonment without the option of a home detention order, which is in any event, a form of imprisonment. Some of the purposes of home detention orders are to avoid the cost of imprisonment in a goal, whilst leaving the prisoner in a position of being able to continue his or her employment so that unnecessary hardship on the prisoner’s family is avoided. The terms of home detention orders are quite stringent. The prisoner is not permitted to consume alcohol, is not permitted to leave his home without permission from a parole officer and is subject to random surveillance and random testing for alcohol and drugs any time of the day or night. Breaches of conditions can lead to a court ordering the prisoner to serve the whole of the suspended sentence in gaol without any credit being given to the time held in home detention.
It is difficult to see what purpose is achieved by a short sentence of imprisonment which is not as effective as a home detention order. In Ternary v Bradley I said:
- Prescribed mandatory minimum sentencing provisions are the very antithesis of just sentences. If a court thinks that a proper just sentence is the prescribed minimum or more, the minimum prescribed penalty is unnecessary. It therefore follows that the sole purpose of a prescribed minimum mandatory sentencing regime is to require sentencers to impose heavier sentences than would be proper according to the justice of the case.
There is also the fact that judicial discretion in sentencing has been replaced by the discretion of the prosecutor as to what charge or charges should be laid and, indeed, whether any charges should be laid at all. The transfer of power to the prosecuting authorities in this way gives rise to the temptation to bribery. Prosecutorial discretion is not conducted openly in the same way courts must operate. There is also the countervailing problem that, in order to ensure that there is no public criticism, prosecutors may feel uncomfortable in dropping charges that have little prospect of success.
This legislation is based on an election promise, on a belief it is what the public wants without surveying the views of the informed public, without any evidence to present sentencing is inadequate, and with no evidence that adding a three-month mandatory sentence will make any difference to the present situation or deter people from committing a violent crime.
This law will mean courts will be clogged up with more people pleading not guilty and the onus will go to police not the courts. Domestic violence victims could suffer retribution, judges and magistrates will lose discretion and, as Justice Mildren said, there is a risk of bribery occurring.
I believe in mandatory punishment not mandatory sentencing. That says people who offend must take responsibility for their actions. Mandatory punishment gives the judiciary latitude to sentence accordingly, but mandatory sentencing takes away the discretion of the judge to apply a punishment that fits the crime - a basic tenet of our judicial system.
Mandatory sentencing is a creature of the ‘tough on crime’ party politics which has been part of the political circus around elections for years. It has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with politics. It is simplistic and does not look at the reasons why violent crimes are committed and what we can do to reduce violent crime before it gets to the court.
Most violent crime is alcohol-related, but the government is more concerned about window dressing, which is what this bill is about, rather than dealing with the underlying problems. The government scrapped the BDR without allowing it time to run long enough to see any positive outcomes. I am disturbed to hear the government is considering scrapping the SMART Court. There seem to be no policies to replace those in the short term, and we seem to be in a vacuum when it comes to real evidence-based approaches to violence, especially alcohol-fuelled violence in our society.
Of course, there is a section in this new bill called ‘exceptional circumstances’. That will probably not apply to most of the people who come before the court because, if you are under the influence of drugs and alcohol, you will not be included in the exceptional circumstances, something I agree with. However, the clause is put in to say there are some means of not coming under the three months mandatory sentencing, but they really would be exceptional circumstances if you were not sentenced to that mandatory sentencing term.
We should be tough on violent offenders. I can see from the evidence the judges and magistrates are giving out sentences that are not appealed which shows they are in touch with what goes on. As someone involved in the judiciary asked me recently, ‘Do you really think a judge or magistrate would not come down harshly on an offender who injured a police officer, a paramedic, a bus driver or someone working at Maccas late at night? Of course they would’. The Attorney-General’s bill shows he does not believe the judiciary, which is a sad thing.
Finally, we have a system of justice the Attorney-General is part of which should be upheld and supported. If we have faith in the judicial system the public will. If we promote the poor reasoning behind this legislation, we encourage the community to lose faith in the judiciary. This bill is a slap in the face to our judiciary and only reinforces the uninformed view that present sentencing by our judges and magistrates is inadequate. I thought the Attorney-General would work to change the uninformed view to one which understood the facts.
Unfortunately, when it comes to a chance to strengthen the community’s support for our judiciary the high ideals of the government and its tough on crime slogan are paramount, and the ideals we should hold as members of parliament in support of our justice system are treated as secondary and our Northern Territory is all the poorer. If we keep going down this path, are we not turning our judges and magistrates into puppets, instead of judges who are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice?
Madam Speaker, this is bad law built on a sandy foundation of political expedience and a deliberate and self-serving promotion of uninformed views on sentencing rather than higher values, good legal principles and the truth. It does not fulfil the sentencing guidelines in the Sentencing Act. It is bad law and I will not support this bill.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Nelson and the shadow Attorney-General representing the Labor values, the member for Nhulunbuy. I am surprised there are not more voices in the House today because this is a monumental occasion where we are returning to draconian law and, as the member for Nelson pointed out very pragmatically, driven purely by politics.
I will share my thoughts and participate in this debate representing the people of the Barkly, and the people of the Northern Territory in a broader context, opposed to this legislation.
When I was elected, five months in I was sworn into my first Cabinet as Minister for Transport and Minister for Corrections. When trying to explain that new role as a minister of the Crown and the responsibilities that went with it to my family, our youngest son said, ‘Well, I get the transport bit dad, but what about corrections?’ I said, ‘Well, son, I have been given the task of delivering something for the Northern Territory society’. He said, ‘Yes, like a bloody big prison’.
That opened a four-year dialogue with that young fellow about the responsibilities. I was able to get a headway in that debate over the four years because the Labor government at the time entered into its new era in corrections. Not only did the Labor Party enter a major reform period of the judicial system and Correctional Services, it backed it with considerable resources. I remember the long arduous debates in the Cabinet room about that.
I thank the member for Nhulunbuy, the shadow Attorney-General, for her preparation for this debate, her briefings and the Caucus papers she produced. I also refer to two Attorneys-General with the Labor government, the member for Karama and the previous member for Johnston, who taught me much about the judicial system when we had quite extensive and arduous Caucus debates about challenging policy and policy changes.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Country Liberal Party Caucus room and hear the debate, the challenging of values and morals, the questions about why, and the new Attorney-General of the Northern Territory government being able to explain specifically why this government is going down this path and securing support from CLP Caucus members who have agreed yes, this is a good thing. Minimum mandatory sentencing is a good thing; that will teach them, that will show them.
The member for Nhulunbuy said she is interested to hear from other members. I am also particularly interested to hear further speakers in this debate who can convince Territorians that minimum mandatory sentencing of people for three months is a good way to go.
When the Attorney-General introduced this legislation to the House and recently shared his media release, I tried to communicate this to the people of the Barkly. I put my position and the position of the Labor opposition carefully to the people of the Barkly and ensured we provided a balanced view where we supported the Victims of Crime Assistance Amendment Bill the Attorney-General brought to the House, and the amendments to the Bail Act and the Domestic and Family Violence Act.
However, I told constituents I could not support minimum mandatory sentencing and produced a synopsis for that. I tried to keep it short and to the point so for the Barkly constituents I told the story governments set the agenda in parliament, which means achieving their legislative process for passing new laws. The Mills government media release on the eve of the first parliamentary sittings for 2013 cited a significant focus on law and order with five pieces of legislation to be passed to make the Territory a safer place.
The CLP message is ‘tough on crime’ and appeals to the community to stand by a political party that says it has all the answers to keep us safe.
As a member of the opposition, I represent Labor Party values of sharing a tough-on-crime approach but setting clear boundaries between the political and judicial sphere of influence. In other words, we support legislation which empowers the justice system to administer punishment not politicians.
The CLP government introduced laws to amend the Bail Act and the Domestic and Family Violence Act to enable courts to order drug and alcohol tests. This was supported by the Labor opposition as an effective tool for the judicial system. CLP legislation also raised the victims of crime levy, supported by Labor on condition all increased funds go directly to supporting the recovery of victims, not administration, reflecting the price hike mentality of the Mills government.
However the major point of difference between the two political parties on amendments to the Criminal Code Act is minimum mandatory sentencing, where CLP politicians have interfered with the judicial powers of the courts imposing a minimum three months gaol time for assault. A CLP mandatory minimum sentencing regime removes the discretion of the court to impose options for dealing with the root cause of violent crime in the Northern Territory directly related to drug and alcohol abuse. This new legislation is not supported by legal practitioners, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the NT and Aboriginal justice agencies as it reduces sentencing options available to magistrates and judges, will clog courts, fills prisons and add considerable cost to the taxpayer.
There is no evidence reduced assaults will be achieved by minimum mandatory sentencing as it does not tackle alcohol-related crime and sentences of less than six months. Locking up the alcohol-related offender with hardened criminals does nothing to support rehabilitation.
Territory Labor introduced a sentencing amendment in 2008 which specified particular assaults must record a conviction and order a term of actual imprisonment which may be partly suspended. This retained the independence of the court in cases where rehabilitation would be better achieved with offenders paying dues to the community and not isolated in a prison cell at great expense to the taxpayer.
In opposition, we do not support a law where politicians become judge, jury and executioner, while acknowledging some constituents in the Barkly support this Country Liberal Party position.
The CLP government has the numbers in parliament to pass new laws in addition to scrapping others, like Labor’s Banned Drinker Register and the SMART Court - an alcohol tribunal for dealing with the root cause of violent assaults in our community, alcohol abuse. Approximately 82% of the Northern Territory prison population is Aboriginal, with 60% of violent crime directly related to alcohol abuse. What is the CLP government, and its new Aboriginal members of parliament, hoping to achieve in delivering more prison sentences in the absence of alternative sentencing, education, training and rehabilitation? I have started discourse in Tennant Creek and the Barkly and people are asking questions about this law.
This law will travel through this House today and become the new way of doing business for the government. I want the Attorney-General to explain a few issues because I respect his background and higher education, particularly his experience with the law. As Minister for Correctional Services, there must be much thinking about the end product of this legislation not only in a judicial sense, but also in outcomes for the people who will be directly affected by this legislation.
When I was Minister for Correctional Services there were several elements of the back end of what we see in our Territory community which were continually troubling me and difficult to deal with. I struggled with them and looked for alternatives. The Attorney-General may be able to shed some light on this for me because what I found most challenging in a custodial sentence was the first three months. I found it extremely difficult for that to have any real impact on the offender. I worked tirelessly with Correctional Services to see what could be done to have the impact in the first three months improved. I was able to deliver for one young gentleman on remand, who had his apprenticeship books delivered to the prison so he could continue studying. That was requested by his father and we delivered for him.
I had the library service improved in the area offenders spent around three months in the system. It was where they went through a reception process - detoxed in other words. If they were drug-affected, it was the end so they sought medical attention and went through withdrawal. They dried out if they had alcohol problems - most of them did - and started to familiarise themselves with a life inside.
That must have been pretty scary for offenders not familiar with the system, and I had some interesting experiences in the many prison visits I made over the years. As a visiting minister, images appeared about what it would be like if the clang of the prison door behind me was for real.
Prisoners had to go through a classification. For the short-term sentences - less than six months - they were ready to be turned out and we had done nothing with them except, in many circumstances, seen them terminated from employment, removed from their families, communities, and any benefits they were entitled to in society, and put into an environment where they were not surrounded by intellect and inspirational characters.
That was another big challenge and why there was the big push on alternative sentencing and getting people into environments to empower them, build self-esteem and what the Attorney-General will talk about later today - work environments and so forth. In a three-month period, it was almost impossible to do anything constructive. Minimum mandatory sentencing – ‘make sure we bang them up for at least three months’ - seems very clumsy at the back end of this legislative instrument.
I wonder how the CLP Caucus debated and deconstructed that. I am interested to know how the Attorney-General sold this to the CLP Caucus which, obviously, is interested in this legislation, particularly those members born in regional and remote areas - the ‘new liberals’ in the CLP government – and people representing electorates with a large percentage of Aboriginal people. Go to the figures to see the brutality of 82% of the prison population being Indigenous. It is not only Aboriginal people who are involved in the system, it is also people with low socioeconomic status, low educational levels, and those caught up in the system.
I have faith in the judicial system. I have had contact with the system on a number of occasions for various reasons. I have tried to learn through each experience with the judicial system, and I put my faith in our judicial leaders.
As the member for Nelson pointed out, another aspect of the clumsy nature of this legislation is taking that discerning power away from our judicial leaders. They are important people in our society who make important decisions. Also, the existing system has its checks and balances; there are avenues for appeal.
I am not hearing resounding support from the judicial sector. Having spent some time working with the Department of Justice - also a great learning curve for me and I value those opportunities - I do not believe our public sector would be totally supportive of this legislation. It must be difficult to be in that position, not only if you do not support it philosophically and have issues around the morality, but also when it is being politically driven.
This reminds me of a mate of mine who used to conduct occupational health and safety training with juvenile diversion students I had as a teacher - we called them delinquents. He did some reality training by deconstructing a formal occupational health and safety accredited course and putting it into real speak in real language. One of his great clichs was, ‘Yes, it is all good fun until someone loses an eye’. The guys love that. They loved his anecdotes and his approach to teaching and they learnt much from this guy, particularly when he was wielding chainsaws and we were operating cranes and rolling drums.
However, it is all good fun until somebody loses an eye. This is really good legislation until it happens to my son, or my mate’s daughter, or starts to impact on us directly in the community. We think, ‘Hang on a minute. Perhaps this is not the best way to go with this individual’. Maybe the magistrate will understand the story because they are a learned and respected person, highly professional, and could make the decision that no, this minimum gaol term is not a good thing for this person. They understand there are real support networks around the offender and there is real prospect of total rehabilitation. Unfortunately, in the Northern Territory they will be banged up for three months. This will be rather challenging when we look at what will come forward.
I remember the great community debate around mandatory sentencing for property offences under a CLP government. There was a socially and economically disadvantaged person who made a poor decision to take a towel off a clothesline. Unfortunately, the magistrate used that case to explain the clumsy and inappropriate legislation by saying, ‘I am very sorry but you will have to serve a minimum term of imprisonment’. When we talk about imprisonment, as former Minister for Correctional Services I learnt it can be a life-changing experience and, in many cases, one for the worst.
I commend the new Minister for Correctional Services for the alternative approaches to Correctional Services. I am looking forward to the forthcoming statement because when I first came to the Twelfth Assembly and saw the new government at work I was hearing stories about incarceration, prisons and punishment. However, it is obvious this government understands the balance. Let us hope there will be a good mix of correctional services, particularly alternative sentencing and the principles of the new era we were working on. It will never be mentioned again because I remember this government in opposition had a great deal of trouble with the concept of a new era in corrections.
This legislation is not a good tool in the tool box. This legislation takes power away from the judiciary: an established form of decision-makers in our society. It imposes a political agenda of judge, jury and executioner. I am hoping to hear more from Liberals in this House why this is good legislation because I will take it back to my constituents in the Barkly and put it forward. I will say, ‘This was put up in the House. This did not only come from the Attorney-General, it came from other Liberal members. They spoke about why this is good legislation, that it will work and will set a serious message and tone in the community. It will make us safer, reduce crime, and we will all live happily ever after’.
This is from a media release on 4 February 2013, from the National Indigenous Drug & Alcohol Committee and the Australian National Council on Drugs. It is in regard to the report, An economic analysis for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders; prisons vs residential treatment. It attracted media attention around economics, but let us forget economics and talk about the human outcomes this report delivered to not only the federal government but any interested government. It specifically looked into prisons versus residential treatment, or let us surmise prisons versus alternative treatment or alternative sentencing. The Chair of the National Indigenous Drug & Alcohol Committee, Associate Professor Ted Wilkes said in the release:
- Imprisonment is destroying our people, families and communities. The ever increasing number of Indigenous people in prison is a huge issue. It has to be addressed as a matter of absolute urgency. The report confirms not only what we have known for a long time, that diverting people away from prisons leads to better health outcomes, but that diversion makes good economic sense as well.
Diversion programs have huge benefits. They can help avoid negative labelling and stigma associated with criminal conduct. They can prevent further offending and they reduce the number of people going to prison. We clearly need a new pathway...
Mr Elferink: Member for Barkly, how much longer will you be? I have to attend to something for about three or four minutes. Will you be continuing for that long?
Mr McCARTHY: I will try to keep going, John.
Mr Elferink: It is a matter of growing anxiousness.
Ms Walker: I am sure there will be members on this side.
Mr McCARTHY: There are bound to be about six or seven more.
Mr Elferink: I do not want to be caught short.
Madam SPEAKER: The member has at least another eight minutes.
Mr Elferink: Thank you.
Mr McCARTHY: As a politician, I can talk under cement with a mango in my mouth.
I am pleased my contribution to debate has been captured on the Parliamentary Record, particularly when I started with the story of Joseph McCarthy and ‘Dad, yes, you are building a bloody big prison’, and the four years of work to balance that out.
I was asked to, ‘Rattle on a bit longer because I have to duck out to an important engagement’. We are not allowed to refer to people in and out of the House, but I am pleased this is captured in the Parliamentary Record because when I share this with constituents in the Barkly, and anybody else, it will make interesting reading that the Attorney-General called a point of order and the reason why.
I was quoting from that important report which said enough is enough. With the new era, we were heading down the right pathway. We did not have all the solutions, but it is like the Banned Drinker Register, the SMART Court and the Alcohol Tribunal. If new policy is not given a chance to work, you do not see the true ramifications or the real evidence in the community.
This legislation will be given time to work because it will pass through the House today. We will then see the ramifications and some interesting aspects of the judicial system.
The member for Nhulunbuy touched on an abstract but important issue. If our judicial leaders, our legal fraternity, and the people working in the system to deliver these important outcomes see something is not right, something dodgy has been imposed on them, they will work around it because that is the right thing to do. They are not breaking any law, not doing anything wrong. They will have agreements within the judiciary to, hopefully, still deliver the principles of natural justice where deserved.
That is an interesting comment which made me think about the kids I had been working with and what I have seen of the system. I understand that. It may be the fail-safe we need in clumsy legislation. It may be the only way to balance out the other side of the argument that this legislation will mean clogging the courts, overcrowded prisons, and people taken in for a minimum period denied their existence on the outside and coming out with less opportunity for rehabilitation or to address recidivism and so on. We will wait to see as legislation must be given a chance.
Also, legislation is always up for review. Under the previous government it was always reviewed around the 12-month period. In around 12 months we will be reviewing this. I am sure the Attorney-General will lead that in the interests of Territorians because if we see what other countries and jurisdictions have seen, we will need to change this.
At the moment we are going down a road well-trodden and the Attorney-General feels confident this will, as he said in media releases, deliver community safety; this will make people feel safer and be a better outcome for our community. Well, we will wait to see.
Madam Speaker, I have used up my time and hope I have contributed to the debate. I would like to hear from the Attorney-General how things will change in an offender’s life after three months in the big house.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker I have listened to the opposition speak about people who are being imprisoned, people who are drunk, and point to us as Aboriginal liberals who do not know what we are doing. We do not have a clue because we are now part of the Country Liberal Party. They believe we do not know what is best for our people. They mocked our Chief Minister when he said, ‘Talk to the drunks and tell them not to drink. Don’t get drunk’, or along those lines.
Members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy, we do that every day. I do it every day on the streets of Alice Springs. We do it every day to our family members. Gaol, to our people, is okay because families tell us they are happy their son, nephew, sister or cousin is in gaol for three months because they do not drink, do not get into trouble, are fed three times a day, are with their family members, sleep in language groups and come out of prison much healthier.
For us, the Aboriginal Liberals - maybe I should call you White Labor because I take offence to that. We sit quietly listening to white faces talk about Aboriginal people being imprisoned and how it is so bad for Aboriginal people when I, and the other Aboriginal Country Liberals, try to encourage our family members not to get into trouble.
What did Labor do for our people in the 11 years they were in government? The Banned Drinker Register never helped our people. We will put up with this forever while you members will not have to worry about them because you can go home, close the door and not worry about what is happening outside your front door, your back door, or in the streets.
Some of our families are happy with their young blokes being locked up because they are safe, well fed, and do not drink alcohol. For many of our people gaol is not punishment, at least when they have a short-term sentence.
We all have to work together. If you really care about our people we should all work together as Territorians to help each other find a better pathway for my people, the Aboriginal people - the alcoholics, the reoffenders – and try to point them in the right direction. Labor was in power for 11 years and we saw no Labor members out where I was - especially the then member for Stuart - wanting to help our families’ worst alcoholics who we all saw in the streets of Alice Springs. No rehabilitation centres, no boot camps, nothing was discussed, nothing happened in 11 years to help our people get over this problem which will never go away.
We can talk and talk about how it will not change, how our Attorney-General does not know what he is talking about. We can talk about the Yolngu, Warlpiri, Tiwi and the Binninj. We, as Aboriginal people, know what we have to do. We do not need other people talking about what is best for our people. If you cared about our people you would have done something about it. All those years and we are still talking about the same problems Labor had been dealing with for 11 years. Now this government is trying to do its best to help our people - the alcoholics and the reoffenders.
Our gaols are filling up because our people get themselves into trouble. They reoffend. Are you going to stop these people reoffending? Will you be there when these people hit their wives while in a state of intoxication? Are you there every night to say to them, ‘Treat your family with care’? We do that every day. We are on the phone to our family who tell us, ‘Your nephew will go to court. We need you to support him’. We say to these young people, ‘Don’t get into trouble’.
Like the member for Barkly said, I am learning; I will be learning. By the time I have learnt what it all means, hopefully, I will be saying at least I have done something for one person instead of protecting them and saying, ‘Poor bugger blackfella. Why are you locking him up? No, just let him lie there under that tree. Let him be trodden on. Don’t touch him, poor bugger blackfella’.
This has been going on for so long yet the people we are trying to protect are doing the same thing they do every day. For the last 11 years, I have not seen Labor do anything to save these people. They are still doing the same thing they do every day. I believe it is the same in Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Darwin. If you really care about these people, like our Chief Minister said, ‘Talk to them and point them in the right direction’. Do not have a go at our Chief Minister because he said that. He is passionate because he wants to do something for our people.
We do not want to see them locked up. Our gaols are full of Aboriginal people but they do it to themselves. No one is forcing them; they are doing it to themselves. The best way to go about it is, instead of throwing slogans at each other or pointing the finger at each other across the floor, if you really care about these people why not do something about it? Why not all do something about it and not pretend, ‘We know more than you’? We live this lifestyle; we have to put up with it.
The member for Barkly spoke about his family in Tennant Creek. I have family in Tennant Creek as well who need support. We all need to help our people move forward. Instead of saying, ‘I know better than you; I know what is best for Nhulunbuy, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek’ - these are Aboriginal people we are talking about. You do not have the faintest idea what everybody else is saying about them.
Madam Speaker, We can talk about them, say we care about them, and read statistics Boffa may have put together, but it has still not helped our people. As I said before, our families want our young people to be locked up, want our families to be locked up because they are safe in there.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, there is an angle I am sure members did not consider which carries weight. Also, in relation to the fixation the Labor Party has with Indigenousness in this debate, for nearly every Indigenous offender who will be subject to this legislation there is an Indigenous victim who deserves protection like any other victim of crime.
I hope I do not have to keep referring to people by race because this is not targeted at race. This is targeted at people – victims and offenders - and that is the classification I am interested in.
I would like to read something from the previous Chief Minister:
- Serious violent offenders will not get a second chance and bail will be tightened under tough proposals introduced into parliament today.
- The Chief Minister Paul Henderson said the Sentencing (Violent Offences) Amendment Bill means offenders found guilty of serious violent offences will serve a term of imprisonment.
To further strengthen the NT’s laws, changes to the Bail Act will be made that provide a presumption against bail for a serious violent offence.
‘If you cause someone actual harm, you will go to jail first time - no second chances,’ Mr Henderson said.
‘Bail will not be automatic - in fact, the offender must show the court why bail should be granted.
The community expects the judicial sentencing regime to be in line with their expectation. I think many Territorians believe that is not occurring’.
- Mr Henderson said the tough new proposals will put violent offenders on notice.
- ‘We are sending a clear message that if you commit a serious assault there will be no doubt about the consequences,’ he said.
‘If you glass someone or break someone’s jaw you will go to jail first time. There will be no suspended sentences.
These measures will give the courts consistency in sentencing’.
I also recall the members for Nhulunbuy and Barkly were members of Caucus at the time. Where was their strident opposition to the mandatory sentencing regime proposed by the Chief Minister? Where was their protection of the courts saying it was a challenge to the integrity of the courts? Where were their howls of opposition and defence of the downtrodden when the Chief Minister was making those observations? They were resplendent in their silence.
I table a similar media release from Dr Chris Burns in which he said the opposition’s - that was us - credibility was in tatters because the CLP Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, had lost all credibility on crime after being caught out misleading Territorians about sentencing. Attorney-General, Dr Chris Burns said:
- … Mr Mills had tried to hoodwink the electorate in CLP Opposition television ads.
‘Mr Mills has promised minimum sentences for a second violent offence -the fact is we already have them – he’s been caught misleading Territorians’, Dr Burns said.
‘The Northern Territory’s government’s laws go even further - with a mandatory minimum sentence for anyone convicted of a sexual offence - first time - no discretion’.
‘If Mr Mills gets his way our tough laws on crime would be watered down’.
‘Mr Mills is either incompetent or deceptive - either way he’s too big a risk to run the Territory’.
‘He’s been caught out - his credibility and integrity are in tatters’.
‘The Northern Territory government has zero tolerance to crime – that’s why we’ve put on an extra 200 police and there’s more to come’.
I wonder what Dr Chris Burns has to say about the contribution from the two members opposite when you contrast it with the last government of the Northern Territory.
There was also a quote at the bottom which Dr Burns relied on from Glen Dooley of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency which said:
- Well, that’s interesting because the first thing that Terry Mills obviously doesn’t know is that the Sentencing Act already contains mandatory sentencing for violent offences, exactly as he’s proposing to bring in. The current Section 78BA says that if you are guilty of a second violent offence you must go to jail and you must serve some of that period of jail.
It is already in the legislation so he is off the mark there. Clearly, I, as Attorney-General, am getting it wrong. I table that media release with a copy of section 78BA of the Sentencing Act as in force at 11 March 2008.
I continue:
- Presumption of bail reversed for repeat violent offenders ...
Starting to get a theme, are we? I am not going to quote the whole thing. Basically, the former government was going to be tough on crime and was all about mandatory sentencing. I did not see in the debate strident opposition from the member for Barkly. Let us talk about an Aboriginal bush member, as the member for Barkly likes to refer to him …
Mr Giles: Not good enough to be a proper member, just an ...
Mr ELFERINK: No, just an Aboriginal one. This Aboriginal female Labor member, Ms McCarthy, said:
- ... Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill will provide the authorities with additional capacity to meet the challenge of violent crime. Good governance requires the laws align with community expectations. There is no doubt that the Territory community is concerned about violent crime. There is no doubt that the Territory community wants an assurance that those guilty of violent crime receive real punishment. This bill will do just that. This bill ensures that serious assaults will see the offender serve gaol time. Current legislation provides people a second chance in relation to serious assaults. There will be no second chances under the new law. This bill sends the strongest of messages because that is what the Territory community expects.
Mr McCarthy: Is that what happened with the CLP, John? Everybody toeing the party line?
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. Yes, it is all about toeing the party line. Perhaps what people agree with, member for Barkly, are the sentiments of the media releases I read out. Perhaps people believe what Ms McCarthy had to say in that debate. Maybe people on this side of the House believe this is appropriate and right legislation. We attempted to amend that legislation because we knew that whilst the rhetoric was there the substance was not. Of course, what we, and the former shadow Attorney-General Ms Carney pointed out - somebody the Labor government had such respect for it gave her a job after she left politics - was a capacity in that legislation for the sentence to gaol - which is in the media releases - to be nothing more than a sentence to the rising of the court.
In our opinion, it did not go far enough. What we are doing today is fulfilling the Labor government’s promise to ensure, if people are convicted of violent crime, they will do time. The rhetoric about the independence of the courts was completely abandoned by the members opposite who sit there in silence. They were happy to sign up to this; it is all about toeing the party line. The independence of the court was subordinate to the party line.
Let us put a few furphies to bed. Let us talk about the independence of the courts. They are not completely independent of this House nor should they be. It is part of the natural tension in the separation of powers. If you were to make the courts completely independent - adjudicate completely independently over all offences created by this House - there would be no mandatory loss of driver’s licence at the point you were picked up for drink-driving. In fact, if you were picked up for speeding you would have to make an application for the court to hear the matter. That is clearly a patently absurd idea, which is why we do this by way of regulation and impose mandatory sentences. It is a mandatory speeding fine, a mandatory loss of licence, a mandatory minimum fine for an exceed 0.05 offence.
That is the principle about intruding on the power of the courts. The former government gave us mandatory sentencing for murder. It had no problem intruding on the power of the courts. You issued media release after media release saying you were going to intrude on the power of the courts, but what they are concerned about is the outcome this legislation will propose; if violent offenders commit violent crimes they will do time as was promised by the former Labor government under the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson.
The other thing which constantly amazes me - I will return to this theme - is the members opposite think Aboriginal people who commit violent crimes are victims. They are happy to make that assumption because it is all about nurturing and caring for them and all those types of things.
What about the real victims? What about the victims who have been bashed by these people? What do we do for them? Well, not a great deal. There is a consistent belief we have completely removed all capacity of the courts to deal with these types of offences. No, we are mindful of it so we have established a structure in which exceptional circumstances can be considered by the court doing the sentencing. This means matters like the opinion of the spouse who has brought a criminal action against his or her spouse, as the case may be, may make an application to the court. I draw honourable members attention to clause 78DI(3)(a) which deals with this component of exceptional circumstances:
- Any victim impact statement or victim report presented to the court under section 106B …
If a victim says to a court, ‘I don’t want to see this person do the time for the crime they have committed against me’, we have specifically identified that. We have, ‘Not only can you consider whatever you like about what is exceptional’ - a broad capacity for a court – ‘moreover, we are making it absolutely clear the victim’s wishes can be considered for the purposes of the exceptional circumstances’.
We considered that and attended to it. In essence, we are saying to the court, ‘We expect you to send people to gaol for their misdeeds and conducts’. We do this with much legislation across all types of offences. ‘We also expect you to take into consideration those circumstances which are so exceptional this law should not apply’. We have said to the courts, ‘Whilst we expect you to put them in gaol and put legislative pressure on you, we still allow you an element of discretion in the right circumstances. The quality of mercy, we understand, is not strained’.
Members opposite have been so precious all the way through this. They are repositioning themselves and not much more. They were happy to support this. It is all about toeing the party line, but they had no problem with any of this at a philosophical level. It was all perfectly fine four years ago. All I have heard from the members opposite in relation to this has fallen on a set of cynical ears - mine.
The cost of people going through the prison system is also an issue, I accept that. If you run that argument backwards - recently attempted by a national report - that it is cheaper to keep all prisoners out of gaol and put them into different institutions, you could understand that. However, gaols do not make money. Gaols are an expensive institution but are there because people commit crimes and we put people in gaol, which is why they cost money. If you run the argument it is all too expensive, do not bother, let us make it really cheap, let us close the gaol doors completely, let everybody go, - Bradley John Murdoch, Anthony Scotti, Andrew Albury - let them all go. That would be patently absurd as well, so there has to be a balance.
The point of balance, we on this side of the House believe, can accommodate, from a cost point of view, people who will go to gaol as a result of this legislation: people who have committed violent offences.
Why is there an argument about cost? Of course it costs to gaol people. Members opposite, in government, also had to gaol people. In fact, they had to build a bigger gaol. Unfortunately, because of the deal with the member for Nelson, we had confusion around where to build the gaol. It is now 12 months later and there is pressure on the old gaol system. The gaol is under pressure and I have made no secret of that; I have spoken about it publicly. The gaol is under pressure because of the former minister and his government’s fundamental mismanagement of the construction of the new gaol, which is not entirely necessary in the structure it currently takes. We have to accept this gaol because we have been given it by the former government.
I pick up on comments made by the member for Nelson, who put up a good fight. There is much in what he had to say. He spoke about mental health problems of people affected by the system. If a person is so mentally unwell they would commit or engage in conduct that, but for their mental debility, would qualify as an offence, they would not be convicted for that offence because they were not criminally responsible. In the absence of a conviction you would not take the logical steps into the process of sentencing.
I return to this issue. Perhaps a court, in whatever circumstances it finds itself, believes a person with a mental issue not of such a nature as to absolve them of criminal responsibility convicts them of a criminal offence, this person does not automatically have to go to gaol because we have constructed the exceptional circumstances clause in this bill. If that person successfully argues their mental impairment is of such a nature as to render them an exceptional circumstance, the court can act accordingly.
If the mental impairment is such that it does not constitute an exceptional circumstance, they will be held answerable for their crime in the sense they will be punished by a mandatory sentence should they commit a Level 5, Level 4 or, in some circumstances, a Level 3 offence. So they should because these people have committed violent crimes. I agree with the former Chief Minister Paul Henderson, former minister Ms McCarthy, and Dr Chris Burns on this issue; these people should do gaol time. We are of one mind. We were in the Eleventh Assembly, but it appears the mind is a bit more fractious in the Twelfth.
I have heard nothing today, and have listened carefully to the point where a call of nature meant I had to slip out of the room. That is all it was, I was not scurrying off to a meeting; it was a natural function. I did not want to get caught out with you sitting down while I was out of the room…
Mr McCarthy: An even more enlightening Parliamentary Record, John. Thank you for that.
Mr ELFERINK: I thought I would let you know because ...
Mr McCarthy: That is on the public record, brother.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I know. I had the courtesy to let you know I was going to be out of the room for two seconds and wanted to be back. As you know, there is a speaker in the gentlemen’s so what is going on in the House is audible. I did not miss a minute of the debate.
There is also the reference that mandatory sentencing does not work. That is an interesting comment because you throw it out as ‘mandatory sentencing does not work’. What are you trying to achieve? If you are trying to put people in gaol for committing serious offences …
Ms Walker: It does not reduce crime - recidivism.
Mr ELFERINK: …it works. The person has committed the offence and gone to gaol. That works! What they are alluding to, of course, is a number of other aspects of this which, in relation to recidivism - I heard the shadow Attorney-General call out across the room, ‘Oh it doesn’t help recidivism’. Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not. However, it works in the sense that it puts violent offenders in gaol. I am keeping the Labor Party policy close to my heart and advancing it consistent with all the public statements of the former Labor government to protect the innocent of our community and am proud to do so. In fact, I am improving on it and am sure both Dr Chris Burns and Paul Henderson, consistent with their public statements, would say, ‘Yes, consistent with what we have said the Country Liberals are advancing Labor policy to the next logical step’.
The short memory of the members opposite is the problem. ‘I am proud to be a Labor Party speaker in this House. I am proud to be a member of the Labor Party supporting its policy and driving it to a better place so we have a better outcome as a Labor government in the Northern Territory’. I have listened to former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson. I have listened to ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Attorney-General well knows our legislation allowed for the court to suspend the sentence partly, including the rising of the court, and that is a distinct difference. You are misleading this House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have the call, Attorney-General.
Mr ELFERINK: I am proudly being consistent with all the public statements of the former Labor government and all the public enunciations on how tough it is on crime. ‘I am proud to be a member of the Labor Party today’. That is what I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This is an interesting repositioning of the Labor Party. Under the new Opposition Leader there is a huge step to the left. Under the next Labor government there will be many ‘don’t turn right’ signs erected around town for subliminal improvement on the chances of the left. We are happily drifting left because they do not want to cuddle up to the former policies of the Henderson government - they do not want to hear what Ms McCarthy had to say. There was not a single utterance about the rising of the court in any of the public announcements of the Labor Party opposite. I have held true, and this parliament is holding true, to the public pronouncements made by the former government.
I note we have to go into committee stage because two new offences are to be added to Schedule 2. The member for Nelson pointed out during a briefing that murder was absent. He is quite right and we are about to fix that. In the process, we have also added section 155A: assault, obstruction etcetera of persons providing rescue, medical treatment or other aid if the offender assaulted the other person. We will be adding those two to the list and look forward to the committee stage. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave taken together and agreed to.
Clause 6:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 5.1 standing in my name to insert section 155A (if the offender assaulted the other person),
Ms WALKER: Bear with me, Attorney-General, I asked you a couple of days ago if amendments were forthcoming.
Mr ELFERINK: I sent you a letter. I put it on your desk.
Ms WALKER: Yes, that was yesterday. I asked you two days ago. You did not response to my e-mail and the letter was dated two days ago. Given the amount of business before the House, I have not looked at this thoroughly. I know you will want to have a go at me. I am not across these clauses and how they work within the body of the act and the changes. I am trying to understand with this clause, if it had not been picked up, there would have been a gaol term for harassing, is that correct?
Mr ELFERINK: Bear with me while I re-read the section.
Ms WALKER: It is being amended for assault.
Mr ELFERINK: We are talking about a Level 5 offence in that clause. I take you to the bill, which is clause 78CA(1)(b) Offence levels, after the words ‘against section’ are serious harm assaults. The addition of clause 155A follows on from the serious harm assault. That is the insertion we are making.
Ms WALKER: That is a fairly serious oversight. How could you get that so wrong?
Mr ELFERINK: It is because the very astute member for Nelson picked up ‘murder’. When that was discovered, a very astute officer from the department looked at it. The suggestion was we include it because it is Good Samaritan legislation - people who assist others - and it was determined it would be appropriate to add it.
Ms WALKER: Thank you for that explanation, and well done to the member for Nelson for picking that up. I recall his former research officer was also very good at picking errors.
Mr Wood: She taught me.
Mr ELFERINK: He did not pick it up; he picked up murder, which was also well done.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 5.2 standing in my name regarding proposed Schedule 2 insert (in numerical order) section 155A assault, obstruction etcetera of persons providing rescue, medical treatment or other aid if the offender assaulted the person; and also section 156 Murder.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, can I ask a general question on Schedule 2 or do you need to get this through …
Mr ELFERINK: No, we can go to Schedule 2.
Mr WOOD: Are there a number of sections which do not have mandatory sentencing terms attached to them?
Mr ELFERINK: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is where there are previous convictions they may attract the operation of the offences in the schedule.
Mr WOOD: Is the government satisfied with the sentencing the judiciary has applied to those sections that do not have mandatory sentencing? They are violent offences.
Mr ELFERINK: Those offences generally attract much greater sentences than a minimum of three months. Nothing says the sentence will be three months. It says the sentence will be a minimum of three months and they can go out to their natural maximums. As Attorney-General, I have to be cautious because I am mindful of my role and duty. You are inviting me to criticise the courts and I will not do that. I have, on a number of occasions, as is my duty as Attorney-General, defended the courts since becoming Attorney-General and will continue to do so. You will not find me pillorying the courts, which is, essentially, what you are inviting me to do. However, consistent with Labor Party pronouncements of the past and our pronouncements now, we are meeting public expectation.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, you would have heard my belief there is an informed public and an uninformed public and I provided evidence for that. I am not trying to get you to pillory the judiciary. If you are not applying a minimum sentence to a more serious offence, why are you applying it to a less serious offence? If you say the sentences are not satisfactory in relation to Level 5 and Level 4 classifications, why not say they are not satisfactory for attempts to murder or threats to kill? Is the existing sentencing regime doing its job? I have not seen that evidence and I have asked for it. I do not want to see duplicated legislation. If our present legislation is working and people are being sentenced, why are we bringing this forward?
Mr ELFERINK: You have made your point well and it was understood during the earlier debate. The more serious offences - attempt to murder - if a person is convicted one would expect the courts to look at a penalty of greater than three months. It is the lower-level offences where we talk about public expectation, and that expectation is different to the legal profession’s expectation, there is no doubt about that. However, I do not automatically subscribe to your assertion - nor did the former Labor government - that the public expectation is subordinate to the legal fraternity’s. We not only serve the legal fraternity of the Northern Territory, we also serve the public.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, Attorney-General. Just as we have debated today who is right and who is wrong regarding debt, some people on your side would say we need to inform the public more so they can make a better judgment of which side is right. Before you base your changes to this law on so-called public expectation of what should happen, it should be changed to informed public expectation otherwise we are reinforcing people’s concepts based on false information. That seems a very poor basis for bringing in laws. Through history, people have been led by governments giving false impressions that have gained much support. Various leaders are able to say things the public latches onto and believes must be right. They do it for their own end. That does not mean it is right. That is my problem with this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand what you are saying. We, as a democracy, should not second guess the public particularly when it comes to electing us. However, there is an argument in relation to the public’s quality of understanding in matters of sentencing and I listened carefully to what you said. You made your case and I understand what you said. I suspect pursuing this will not advance the committee stages of this bill one way or another.
Mr WOOD: I understand.
Ms WALKER: Attorney-General, this is a more general question around the minimum sentence of three months. Why it is three months and not two months?
Mr ELFERINK: There is certain arbitrariness to it. If you look at sentencing - even a court, when it goes through a sentencing process - why does a murderer get 20 years instead of being executed? Why does a murderer not get five years? Why does a murderer not cop a substantial fine if he can afford to pay $2m in damages to the family? Punishment is probably one of the hardest things to measure for a court or parliament. We do it all the time, but it is very hard because there are so many competing interests.
One of the great joys about contract law or tort law is you can match the penalty or damages to the loss suffered. If somebody drops a 20 tonne weight on my new car worth $40 000, a court can say, ‘The loss was this much; we are going to restore that person to their original position’, which was $40 0000. Because of the negligent action of the person who dropped the 20 tonne weight, that person now owes the owner $40 000. That is easy because it is a causal link between cause and effect.
If you read punishment decisions you will see they are really hard. They are arbitrary in nature because it depends where you come from. If you come from a utilitarian philosophy of punishment you will come to a different result than if you go to the lex talionis, a retributive approach to punishment.
Why three months? Because with the best judgment of this side of this House, that was best with the limited capacity available to us - or anybody else, such a court - which would meet public expectation. However, nothing prevents the court, should it be presented with a set of circumstances where it would be inclined to impose a more serious penalty than three months, from doing so. If there is a Level 5 offence which the court takes a very grim view of, it can penalise as much as 14 years – off the top of my head. There is a level of arbitrariness to it, but that is the explanation.
Ms WALKER: I want to talk about proportionality as a principle of sentencing because this is where there appears to be a significant shift. There are exceptional circumstances but they seem to have been removed. It may be easier to understand these things through a hypothetical or example. About this time a year ago there was a very high profile case before the courts where the offender was charged with assault - the former Mayor of Palmerston. He was sentenced to three-and-a-half months in prison, which was suspended but for the 10 days he was required to serve. Obviously, the magistrate hearing that case made that decision based on a number of factors. Would I be right in assuming if that case were to be heard under this legislation there would be no ifs or buts, it would be three months?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, if the victim suffers physical harm as a result of the offence and it is not a Level 5 offence. However, that applies to sections 188A and 189A so it is not a level 4 offence and you go to the next one.
If the offence is against section 188 of the Criminal Code Act, which is an aggravated assault, which the Mayor of Palmerston was convicted of because he injured the person - it was bodily harm. It was, therefore, an indictable offence heard in the lower courts. It attracted what would now be a Level 3 offence under this legislation because of the operation of clause (3)(a). However, at that point, because he had no prior conviction, it would have been more reflective of the current operation of section 78BA introduced by the Henderson government. Unless he had a prior conviction under the operation of this bill, the court may have opposed that sentence because of the nature of the harm. The sentence handed down by the court could have been also handed down under this legislation.
If that person was at work - a Level 4 offence - and the former Mayor of Palmerston struck that person as a result of their work, in accordance with what I said yesterday, the mayor would have served three months.
A suspended sentence is a gaol sentence; he got three months. It is considered to be one step down from actual gaol time: the second step down. The suspension after 10 days is a determination of the court - an act of mercy - but he was given three months and that was appropriate for the court at the time.
Ms WALKER: I am trying to find the point of difference where our legislation allowed for the court to suspend a sentence partly and, if it were a first offence, it would be up to the court to determine the length of time to be served in gaol. There was capacity through the rising of the court.
I go back to the principle of proportionality. These are the words of Justice Southwood around recognising proportionality to the gravity of the crime to be considered in the light of its objective circumstances. One offence versus another in relation to circumstances, injury and all those things seems to be removed under this legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: Removed, not completely, but substantially. Also, if the former Mayor of Palmerston had a prior conviction he would have served three months under the operation of a Level 3 offence. That is how it was intended to work. He was sentenced to three months by the court and the only difference between that and this was he would have served three months.
Yes, it removes, to a degree, some of the considerations of proportionality to the component of the sentence which is covered by the operation of this legislative instrument. I remind you, proportionality is attracted, to a degree, in this legislative instrument by virtue of the operation of clause 78DI - exceptional circumstances - where a certain amount of proportionality can be introduced in the right circumstances. We have left it in the hands of the courts to exercise discretion where the proportionality is of such a nature that it attracts exceptional circumstances.
Ms WALKER: Attorney-General, it is acknowledged on this side Labor’s involvement in developing legislation with components of mandatory sentencing. You mentioned mandatory sentencing for murder. The Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory would tell any government, irrespective of political persuasion, it is very much against mandatory sentencing for the reasons I outlined during debate.
Russell Goldflam put to you that if it is not broke do not fix it. Does the Criminal Lawyers Association of Northern Territory have it wrong and you have it right?
Mr ELFERINK: It is a matter of opinion. We do not agree with them. We went to the people of the Northern Territory at the last election saying, ‘We believe this’. We did not hide this; it was not some furtive thing we had tucked away in a small bag. If we are to accept the adjudication of the people of the Northern Territory, as we must - I do not question it, it is something we must do, our whole system is predicated on that assumption - the only thing I can say is the people of the Northern Territory also do not agree with Mr Goldflam.
I have had this conversation with Mr Goldflam and I understand he is strident and passionate about it. We maintain a cordial relationship and agree to disagree on certain things.
Mr WOOD: People do not want their power prices to go up but you put them up.
Mr ELFERINK: We can have that conversation at another time.
Mr WOOD: In relation to the sentencing guidelines, section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act states:
- The only purposes for which sentences may be imposed on an offender are the following:
- (a) to punish the offender to an extent or in a way that is just in all the circumstances;
It seems ‘just’ is a very important word. If a magistrate or judge believes this change to the law is not just, has the magistrate or judge the right to throw the case before the court out based on that first principle?
Mr ELFERINK: There are two responses to that. First is the general is subordinate to the specific. There is a Latin maxim for it but I cannot tell you it off the top of my head. Basically, it says if there is a specific thing in a legislative item which directs a court to do a certain thing, and there is a competing but general proposition in another part of the bill, the general rule of thumb - with exceptions I imagine, I would have to go to case law for that - is the specific is, obviously, superior to the general.
Perhaps I can explain the rationale behind that. When a court picks up a bill it is picking up a set of instructions from the people of the Northern Territory as expressed through the lawfully elected parliament. It is saying, ‘We must subordinate ourselves to the laws provided by the people of the Northern Territory’. I am reading the set of general principles which say punish the offender in a way to be just in all the circumstances. Okay, I understand those principles. It also talks about damage, injury, loss caused and the nature of offenders. You have a series of general principles.
Then, as the judge, I read through this set of instructions and reach the point where it states, specifically, in the case where it applies to Level 5, Level 4 or Level 3 offences, there is a specific instruction to me. Surely, the people who wrote this instruction to me in the parliament were trying to say something very specific. ‘Whilst we have a set of general principles, we understand the parliament has turned our attention directly to these specifics’. That is how it generally operates.
Mr WOOD: One matter I raised - we are being philosophical here - is one principle put to me many times is the punishment must fit the crime. Is that philosophical principle not in the sentencing guidelines? I was speaking to a lawyer today who opposes mandatory sentencing. He said the basic principle is the punishment should fit the crime. Is that principle in law and, if so, how does it fit this particular case?
Mr ELFERINK: The temptation is to launch into a dissertation on crime and punishment. I could take you down and talk about Michel Foucault. I could talk about the intent of prisons. Perhaps we could talk about utilitarianism as described by Jeremy Bentham. Perhaps, retributive policy, which was Hegel. It is too tempting but I will not go there. I will save you the pain.
Unless you can establish exceptional circumstances, these punishments fit the crime.
Mr WOOD: They can never fit the crime if you do not know what the crime is. If you are to take in all circumstances in relation to a crime, you do not know those circumstances before you apply the penalty.
Mr ELFERINK: Hence the exceptional circumstances clause.
Mr WOOD: You would not need an exceptional circumstances clause if you used the basic principle that the judge or magistrate would make the decision based on all circumstances before the court.
Mr ELFERINK: I am guided by the people of the Northern Territory and the former Labor government on this issue. I have been elected on a promise to introduce this legislation. Do I subordinate myself to the judges or do I subordinate myself to the people?
Mr WOOD: We also have a duty to lead and listen. This law is based on an uninformed public point of view. It is our duty, as members of this parliament through the office we hold, to inform the public. When I tried to do that today, and in the last week by asking for evidence of sentencing, I was unable to obtain that evidence. I also rang the DPP and spoke to the sheriff. He put me on to somebody in relation to appeals. I was told I had to go through protocol; I could not get any evidence there. I find this difficult without the evidence.
Mr ELFERINK: I have checked into that. My advice is the evidence you asked for is highly detailed and taking time to put together. However, this is a House of debate and we do not agree with you. That information will come to you possibly tomorrow.
Mr WOOD: Can we hold off the vote?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, well ….
Ms WALKER: Attorney-General, I am unsure if you share the view I put on behalf of the opposition. We will see an increase in not guilty pleas, an increased pressure on police resources, the DPP office and longer cases in court. Have you taken resourcing into account? How will the system deal with these increased demands?
Mr ELFERINK: There is a presumption of an increase. Let us accept that presumption is correct, although I do not automatically accept it because I believe if the public is informed this may have a deterrent quality. However, I have sought advice and am comfortable we are sufficiently well-resourced to deal with the matters coming before the courts.
It is every person’s right, if they believe they have not committed the offence, to ask the Crown to prove its case. The Crown must do so beyond reasonable doubt. If that person has a defence under the operation of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code Act, they should exercise that right and justice will prevail. If they are convicted then the operation of this act will commence, specifically in criminal matters.
Ms WALKER: Attorney-General, I also put up on behalf of the opposition the proposition this has the potential to see an increase in crime whereby, for reasons I outlined, police may seek a lesser offence, a summary offence type change such that will not meet what it has intended to do. Have you sought advice in this area and have you received assurances this would not be the case?
Mr ELFERINK: I expect the police to do their job. If the police receive a complaint of a serious assault I expect them to investigate it. It there is a prima facie case then I expect them to do their duty diligently. If you have any evidence the police are not going to do that I am interested to hear it.
If a person complains to a police officer that they have been the victim of a criminal act the police are duty bound to investigate it until the point is reached where they either have prima facie evidence of an offence being committed or, alternatively, insufficient evidence to proceed. To suggest police would be avoiding their duty to the citizens of the Northern Territory for the sake of the paper work - if that were true, I would be disappointed with those police
Ms WALKER: No, I was not suggesting they would be avoiding their duties. There is definitely a feeling from conversations I have had and advice received that could be an unintended consequence of this legislation. That is where I was coming from.
I wanted to ask several things on behalf of NAAJA. I assume you responded to the concerns they raised with you. NAAJA requested you consider amending the bill to provide for particular rather than exceptional circumstances. Why did you decide not to make that amendment?
Mr ELFERINK: Perhaps because it is easier. You talk about fettering the courts – ‘particular’ is constrictive by its description - something is particularly this or particularly that. I draw your attention to clause 78DI(3)(b):
- … any other matter the court considers relevant.
That is broad enough for the courts to manage their way through exceptional circumstances.
Mr WOOD: Did you write to magistrates and judges asking their opinion of the bill? Not about its workings, did they agree with the philosophy behind the bill?
Mr ELFERINK: No, I did not write to them. I may have done, but I also spoke to them. I had a meeting with all magistrates at the Local Court about a number of issues and, if memory serves me, this came up. Of course they do not like it. Many people in the legal fraternity do not like it and see it as an intrusion. That has been made clear. I have heard quotes from them and have listened to them. The exceptional circumstances clause reflects some of their concerns.
I also went to the people of the Northern Territory with this policy and now find myself Attorney-General. We find ourselves in government. I understand what you are saying about the great ignorant masses …
Mr WOOD: I did not say that. I was ...
Mr ELFERINK: I understand what you are saying about the ill-informed. I do not presume to second guess the public in that fashion. You do, and that is your business. The question is: do I subordinate myself to the opinion of the judges or the people of the Northern Territory? I choose the latter.
Mr WOOD: You said something which alarmed me. Why did you say they thought this was an intrusion? Why did they not consider it part of the judicial system we have in Australia where they give sentences based on punishment fits the crime?
Mr ELFERINK: All legislation is an intrusion. Go back to the common law system. Put all legislation aside before parliament started operating. Judges made the law. They applied the law as they saw fit in accordance with what other judges said. Every legislative instrument is an intrusion whether it is copyright legislation, tort law - we intrude into contract law with legislative instruments. This is an intrusion, the sex offenders bill is an intrusion, company act legislation is an intrusion. The question is to what degree? We are intruding to a further degree and they see that as a restraint on their liberty.
Our system of governance is such that the parliament is allowed to intrude into the judiciary in the sense it provides legislative instruments. The judiciary, whilst sometimes not happy about this intrusion, subordinates itself to the parliament’s will, quite rightly, and that is how our system works. Yes, they did not want the intrusion but we intrude regularly. Every time we pass a bill in this House we intrude.
Ms WALKER: My understanding is the intrusion is into that blurring of the separation of powers and a further intrusion of one arm - being the government - into that area of the judiciary. The separation of powers is where the intrusion is and the blurring of boundaries.
I have one last question, Attorney-General, which was raised by NAAJA about limiting the relevant prior convictions this bill captures. Thankfully, this bill for mandatory sentencing does not capture youth. I must seek a briefing from your office around boot camps. Obviously, it is progressing.
Why is it, given these young people - immature, yes - are responsible for their actions but, given their immaturity, make a mistake - why do they have to carry that conviction with them into adulthood? That youth conviction will count as a prior offence? NAAJA had asked you to exclude that but you have chosen not to.
Mr ELFERINK: I could ask the same question of the former government, because it introduced that principle. Section 78BA, the other mandatory sentencing I referred to earlier, had exactly the same principle. It continues the former government’s policy.
It is not a breach of the separation of powers. If I, as a member ...
Ms Walker: Not according to you.
Mr ELFERINK: No, if I ...
Ms Walker: Some of the judiciary feel different.
Mr ELFERINK: The separation of powers manifests in different ways. There is the Westminster system, which does not have a constitutional instrument to drive it. It was not long before there was an accepted separation between the executive, - the Crown - the parliament, and the judiciary as the Westminster system started to develop over history. The signing of the Magna Carta would be a starting point to modern time.
That separation of powers came to its most sharp relief in the English Civil War of the mid-1600s when the Crown was executed for treason against the people. The courts have had an adjudicatory role all the way through this development. It finds a different manifestation when the philosopher, Montague, looked at the English system and came up with a cleaner system of separation adopted by the United States. We have two different systems.
The system of separation of powers in the United States is the head of the executive has full control over the executive arm of government and is not required to sit in the parliament - Congress. They have a separate judiciary. However, to run the argument a legislative instrument intrudes into the separation of powers is not describing it correctly. In Australia we capture, through our constitutional instrument, the separation of powers. In the Australian Constitution the courts are described under Chapter 3. I refer you to the discussion on the separation of powers in the boilermakers’ case.
Mr WOOD: I have a question on home detention. In his book, Justice Mildren said he believes mandatory sentencing is a good option. I have always been under the impression it is a fairly difficult option because of the temptation for people to leave their premises. Why has it been taken out considering it would save money by not keeping someone in prison and would enable a breadwinner to put food on the family’s table? It seems to be a backwards step removing home detention as a form of imprisonment.
Mr ELFERINK: I refer you to our earlier discussion in relation to opinions and public expectations.
Mr WOOD: What evidence do you have from the public they do not accept home detention as a form of imprisonment?
Mr ELFERINK: I was elected on this policy.
Mr WOOD: It is not a matter of informing or leading, it is what will get you into parliament - the basis of home detention not being a serious enough form of imprisonment?
Mr ELFERINK: We went to the public with policy prior to the election. They elected us.
Ms WALKER: Attorney-General, given the to and fro the member for Katherine and I had last night over very poor communications around power charges and the fact power tariffs were going up, I still contest he is wrong. There has been incredibly poor lack of communication into our remote Indigenous communities where non-Indigenous people live as well. That is how I find out what is often going on, and the confusion from my non-Indigenous constituents who speak up on behalf of their next-door neighbours.
Given that has been pretty disastrous, along with the concerns of other members, what is the process to communicate to members in the bush who do not read the Northern Territory News or have access to mainstream media? What is the process to communicate this new mandatory sentencing regime and alert people to what is coming? Surely, that would be the right thing to do as a deterrent itself, allow people to know there are new laws coming into place?
Mr ELFERINK: We do what we can, as a government and as an opposition. During the election campaign we communicated this as best we could. I remember seeing some polling from about five to six years ago where we polled name recognition of Clare Martin in one of our towns in the Northern Territory. It came back with about a 95% recognition rate. I was struck that 5% of the population had never heard of Clare Martin, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory at the time.
You do what you can but, at the end of the day, short of putting 5 m by 10 m billboards with flashing lights in every community around the Northern Territory, and doorknocking and communicating in language personally with every individual, some people will not get the message. It is not unreasonable to expect the public to inform itself. That is why we have newspapers, television and those things. We go into broadcasts. There are limitations to what government can do in communicating matters. We have communicated, through every normal and reasonable medium, that these legislative changes are in the pipeline. I have been on television, on radio and in the newspaper talking about this as well as making the plans to go down this path abundantly clear to the public during the election campaign. I do not believe we could have been clearer.
I am not going to second guess the community in the sense of what they did or did not know. I will presume they were as informed as they needed to be when they elected us and we will endeavour to communicate, within reason, the nature and breadth of this policy. We have been doing it, and we will continue to do it, within reasonable means.
Ms WALKER: When you mention mainstream media, I am concerned the Darwin-centric view of mainstream media is the NT News and the ABC. Attorney-General, this message needs to be taken to radio stations which broadcast in language. For instance, Yolngu Radio Service, operated by Aboriginal Resource Development Services, has a very large catchment area across Arnhem Land. I do not know the equivalent of ARDS Yolngu Radio in other parts of the Northern Territory, but it is important to have these messages translated into language.
This goes to the heart of not just the bill before us today, but a commitment from the new government having won on the strength of a protest from the bush and governing for all Territorians. ‘It does not matter if you do not live on the Stuart Highway, you are a Territorian and we will do everything we can to be an inclusive government and rule for all Territorians’. That is not a question to you, just a comment, Attorney-General.
I listened with great interest to what the member for Stuart had to say. Obviously, her comments struck a chord with me and delivered another angle to this debate I had not thought a great deal about. Sorry, that is not true. I have heard it before, but to have said it on the floor of the House and placed it on the record is a sad indictment of where our system is. The member for Stuart said families want young people locked up because prisons are safe places where people can dry out for three months. It is where they are fed, a safe environment and where, sadly, many family members are, so they are not alone.
In contrast, a number of weeks ago I was talking with a senior woman from the Djapu clan who lives at Biritjimi just outside of Nhulunbuy. Her name is Dhangal Gurruwiwi and, in the adopted sense, she is my yapa, my sister, and is a very astute woman. She is a talented linguist and has been involved for a number of years in the Visiting Elders program - a fabulous program initiated when Labor was in government.
I was talking to her about the legislative changes coming up. She was quite shocked and angry. This woman has been very involved in the corrections side of things getting young men, particularly from northeast Arnhem Land, to come back on a work crew. I have an obligation to deliver a message to you, Attorney-General. She asked me to say these mandatory sentencing laws ‘they are stupid’.
Mr ELFERINK: With greatest respect, the message from me is I understand she does not agree. I also understand many Territorians agree, and the majority of Territorians supported the Country Liberals in this endeavour. Whilst I respect her right to dissent - our democracy is built on that beautiful and wonderful right – nevertheless, I am beholden to keep the commitment I made to the majority of Territorians who elected us.
Mr WOOD: I broke a promise, Mr Chairman...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this your last question?
Mr WOOD: I thought I would like to be a normal member of parliament and break a promise.
Attorney-General, you are also Minister for Justice. What are you doing as Minister for Justice to inform people of what sentences are handed down by the courts? In America, in some of the newspapers there is a court list which gives an indication to the community of what sentences are being handed out. You have not been able to give me any evidence today of what sentences have been applied for these offences over the last two years.
Do you not believe, as Minister for Justice, it is your role to inform people so they know what occurs in our courts - what sentences are handed down? Perhaps when sentences are light, there could be a summary of what has occurred. You might suggest going to the website, but most people will not trawl through the courts doing that. There could be a column in the paper saying what offences had gone to the courts and the sentencing. Do you believe you have a role in informing people so they know what is going on?
Mr ELFERINK: I was made Attorney-General and Minister for Justice by the Chief Minister. I thought about that title and it rests a little uncomfortably with me …
Mr WOOD: I thought it might.
Mr ELFERINK: I will explain why because I am happy to be Attorney-General. If you read the legislation creating my job, it says I am responsible for administration of the judiciary: to ensure the whole thing runs properly.
The Department of Justice is called the courts. One of the things a court has to consider in the justice process is what parliament thinks. They really are the Justice Department. In relation to your question, no we do not publish those numbers; we rely on the popular press. One of your complaints was the popular press does not do it properly.
Mr WOOD: You put your version.
Mr ELFERINK: I have not really turned my mind to that. This is the first time that suggestion has been made to me. I will take it under advice, but what I expect from the public is a capacity to inform themselves. The Deemed Papers list is full of annual reports from Attorney-General’s Department, Departments of Justice, different organisations that are beholden to government. If I go to the website the NAALAS report is there, the CAALAS report is there, and you will find at the back the graphs, the numbers, and who did what. It takes some research but is publically available.
The question for me would be to see if there was a benefit beyond all the other information we make available for the public to inform themselves.
As I said before, when the Chief Minister cannot get a 100% name recognition rate - some people simply do not do that no matter what you do.
Mr McCARTHY: Attorney-General, I enjoy committee stage and am glad I have been able to listen to the questions and your answers. It is enlightening to hear the subtle differences between the Labor legislative instrument and the Liberal legislative instrument, particularly your elaboration of the get-out-of-gaol clause in the instrument. It was good the difference in the legislation finally came out without all the filibustering, politics and spin.
I want to talk about - you did not accept my question or contribution - rehabilitation. What rehabilitation of an offender do you believe this legislative instrument can achieve with a sentence of three months?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, we have a number of programs in prison. You should be familiar with the QuickSmart program. We have expanded the packages to get prisoners to teach other prisoners. Yes, they are there for a short time and you cannot always set them to work or whatever. That is touched on in the ministerial statement circulated last night which we will talk about shortly.
In regard to rehabilitation, where this government can do it we will. I have said on a number of occasions, I am the minister for corrections not the minister for punishing the hell out of people. Nevertheless, a component of this legislation is focused at punishment and it is a balancing act between rehabilitation and punishment. There are tomes written on that point of stress. I refer to it as the argument between utilitarianism and retributive philosophy.
Some prisoners will provide you with some difficulty; however, if prisoners come into the system, we know them and they can be classified down to LS2 or open fairly quickly and meet all other requisite benchmarks, we might get them a job. That would be a good result.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, that was my next question. Have you done much research with the Northern Territory Prison Officers Association around classification of prisoners?
Mr ELFERINK: My word. I thank you personally, as former Minister for Corrections, for enabling the classification manual to be made available whilst I was in opposition and being able to read it from cover to cover.
Mr McCARTHY: In relation to somebody coming into the system, would remand be counted in regard to the minimum sentence?
Mr ELFERINK: That would be a consideration for the court.
Mr McCARTHY: Being the first law officer, remand is a difficult period to manage. Often you find prisoners, particularly offenders with assault charges, spending a fair deal of time in remand. Do you see this complicating your rehabilitation plans?
Mr ELFERINK: You are right; remand is a different class of prisoner because they are not guilty. They are a prisoner by virtue of the fact the courts do not trust them to be at large and remand them in gaol until such time as the court can hear their case. In what we can do with them, we cannot set them to work in the way we can instruct other prisoners to work. However, we can offer them opportunities and if they choose to accept those opportunities, so much the better.
Mr McCARTHY: If you had an offender on remand for two months and then sentenced to three months minimum, therefore only having a month to serve in prison, what are your thoughts on the rehabilitation outcomes in that case?
Mr ELFERINK: Not particularly good, if that is what you are after.
Mr McCARTHY: Considering the judicial agencies have told me they expect an escalation in prison numbers, do you see this as a real challenge for the system? The system is very much under pressure at the moment.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but you said in your contribution remand was a problem for you. What has changed?
Mr McCARTHY: With a new legislative instrument it could make it worse. Do you think so?
Mr ELFERINK: No, it was pretty bad under you.
Mr McCARTHY: We established the QuickSmart program. However, as you would know as Minister for Correctional Services, when you have prisoners entering the system with that classification it is difficult to get them into any program or good rehabilitation initiative. We seem to end up with a backlog at the front end of the prison system. Are you telling me your legislative instrument will do nothing to address that?
Mr ELFERINK: We are talking about a sentencing provision in the Sentencing Act. This is an instruction from the parliament to the court. What you are talking about is offender management or, in the case of remand prisoners, remand prisoner management. You admitted you struggled desperately with this issue. We could make all sentences one year long. That way we could have more control over prisoners for a whole year and bring some rehabilitation to bear over that time. That would be useful and we could find them jobs six months before they leave prison. I suspect you would object to that, so it comes back to the problem of time.
I understand what you are saying and am not disagreeing with you. It will not get any worse because of the operation of this legislative instrument. As we roll out future programs within the Corrections system, particularly things like QuickSmart and other programs, we hope to capture some of those. You will not capture them all because some prisoners will just say no.
Mr McCARTHY: Minister, I get what you are saying but the justice agencies inform me there will be an increase in incarcerations. Let us talk about that 12 months because, under the new era in Corrections and the Labor policy, we were directly targeting prisoner sentences under 12 months to keep them out of gaol. You are right; that is what we were doing. It was an attempt to deliver a better rehabilitation outcome through community resources and alternative sentencing.
The whole judicial system was behind it. I was lobbied strongly by the judicial sector and justice agencies to include offenders with assault convictions in it. I delivered that to Caucus and Cabinet and we debated it. Yes, that 12 months is critical, but it would be better done outside a prison sentence than having the minimum sentence in a prison.
The member for Stuart spoke about Indigenous families supporting incarceration of family members. Do you believe minimum mandatory sentencing will create welfarism and Indigenous people, as the member for Stuart said, could see it as a good thing and we will see more Indigenous people incarcerated? At the moment, it is unacceptable that 82% of family members are missing out on their children’s birthdays, on ceremony, not being able to participate in their cultural obligations, not being with their wives or husbands, and having all the fears, frustrations, and intimidations of the custodial system.
I am worried, having heard that comment, about what you are doing with mandatory sentencing. Do you believe some real issues could emerge there?
Mr ELFERINK: That invites about 15 different topics. First, welfarism. If you want to talk about welfare and its destructive role in our community, let us look at passive welfare. Put that aside because you know my opinions on that; there is no need to go there. It is sad some Aboriginal families – I was not going to say that. I do not like talking about Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal in many contexts, and this is one of them, because it is not just about Aboriginality. If you want to look for correlations between people in gaol and a class of people, go for socioeconomic. It is much more pronounced in the socioeconomic structure than in Aboriginality. If you are looking for classes, let us use socioeconomic.
You are now talking about prisoners as though they are some patient in need of care. That is largely what the member for Stuart described. You were very concerned, as minister for Corrections, about outcomes, as am I, but I do not lose sight of the fact these people are in gaol because they are volunteers. They have done something to put them in gaol; they have committed a crime, an offence, or are currently standing trial for an offence and being held in custody because the courts do not trust them to be at liberty.
Every sentenced prisoner is there because they are a volunteer and I do not forget that. They are responsible, and being held responsible, for their actions. If their health improves as a result so much the better for them, but it does not say much about the lifestyle they are leading. If you want to talk about the lifestyle they are leading, health in gaol is better for them, you open up the debate about welfarism, the philosophy of deviance and that type of thing. We are talking about clause 5 in the committee stage of the bill. I do not believe we need to have that debate. However, I understand and am not being negative about what you are saying.
Mr McCARTHY: When we look, on a national level, at trying to address disadvantage and the alarming statistic that 82% of our prison population is Aboriginal and our recidivism rates are 49%, which is out of the ballpark compared to national levels relating to Aboriginal people, as elected community members we have to do something. I like what the member for Nelson says about showing leadership. It is very difficult to normalise people’s lives if you have great numbers of family members absent, particularly if they are in custody. The member for Stuart says there is a real challenge to this legislative instrument if this thinking is real in the community. Prison is a good place to be. Your job is to turn that around and ensure prison is not a good place to be. That is why I keep debating community solutions and alternative sentencing like community custody orders, community work orders and home detention. These strategies are used, in a global context, with many other Indigenous people as well. The comments from the member for Stuart and this new legislative instrument will collide and it will deliver a worse outcome for rehabilitation and recidivism. Would you like to comment, minister?
Mr ELFERINK: You are a long way from this instrument. It is my job to ensure prison is not a good place to be. What do you want me to do? Flog them? Feed them gruel? Lock them up in a broom closet and not let them out? That would not make it a good place to be. This is from the lips of a former Corrections minister. I do not believe prison would be a good place for me because I would see it as a massive imposition on my liberty and freedom. That is why I try not to commit offences, definitely serious criminal offences.
Unfortunately, there are many people on the lower socioeconomic rungs of our community who do not necessarily see prison in that light. I do not mean only people who live in the Northern Territory. You can go to Sydney and find people like that. When a person has such a low standard of their sense of dignity and self-worth, the issue of whether prison is a good place to be is almost a sideline. The real issue is major problems with their own standard and expectation of themselves. People who have reached that low ebb need to start revisiting themselves. The last thing they need at such a low ebb is free money shoved into their hand every fortnight and say, ‘Go your hardest’. That is a recipe for destruction.
Mr McCARTHY: That really defines the difference in policy. As the previous minister for Corrections, I was trying to keep that low-level recidivist, socially disadvantaged person, or that type of offender, out of gaol. You talk about crime and punishment then have the rant trying to intimidate me and include me in the Hansard - what you want me to do. I was trying to make the community solution harder because the member for Stuart is saying prison is seen as an easy option. In opposition, you used to belt me with that. You used to lead that out. The Liberal opposition used metaphors around hotels and all that jive. You were one of the leaders in that. I said to Corrections, Caucus and government, ‘We should make the community solution tougher’. It is. I have interviewed many offenders in my time and they would say, ‘No, I want the conditions of these orders. Lock me up and I will do time’. They would say things similar to what the member for Stuart mentioned. ‘It is okay. We are fed well, get a bed, it is safe, there is no humbug, we are looked after and then we get a bus ticket home’. I took that to government and to Corrections and said. ‘Let us make it tougher’. Guess where it is tougher? - On the outside.
That is why we tried to drive up the relationship with agencies that could provide work and normalise a person’s life. They would get up, do something constructive, then go home and tell their family about it because that is the essence of building self-esteem.
Minister, we have come to the point of difference in this debate and I thank you for that. If you are serious about rehabilitation the community options need to be tougher. The member for Stuart would be well-advised to continue this dialogue. Let us work together to toughen this system up.
We have discovered a point where the tougher option is a community solution where we can mandate work, rehabilitation and education in a community context and people are connected to family and their responsibilities as a member of society who elected you, Attorney-General, to do what you are doing now...
Mr CHAIRMAN: I remind members Standing Order 191 clearly says:
- The discussion shall be confined to the clause or amendment before the committee.
Could members please bear that in mind when speaking, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Most illuminating, thank you.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank staff for the briefing and information provided. I hope more information is forthcoming.
This is an important bill and I am sad we did not have more contributors to debate. There are some basic issues about justice and law and order which need much more debate. I do not accept the Attorney-General’s view that because people say they want something you necessary go along with it. If the captain of the footy team had to listen to all the players he would not be much of a captain.
There are times to lead and times to listen. There are times to inform people and, as leaders in our society, we should be trying to inform people, even on unpopular issues. This is an important issue.
The Attorney-General said people elected his government based on a mandate. I always laugh at that. Previous Chief Ministers and Prime Ministers have said, ‘We have been elected on a mandate’. The mandate has about 200 different issues in it. The government might have been elected on its promise to reduce the cost of living. I roll my eyes at that. It is insincere for any government to say voters agreed with everything the government promised. They would elect a government based on something they supported, even if it was not everything. It is wrong to say, ‘We were elected because this was our policy’. You may have been elected because you offered sports vouchers to every child at school or $5200 for every house out bush. If you had said to people out bush, ‘On the other hand, we are going to lock people up for three months’, people might have had a different view.
This is such an important bill with ramifications into the future. It will lock up more people and take away a fundamental tenet of our judicial system which has judges and magistrates fitting the crime to the punishment. This does not do that and we are going back to 1933. In 1939 they must have been enlightened and scrapped it. We have not learnt from history.
What I heard today worries me. If the government bases its ideas and legislation on what people say, you have populist legislation not always founded on good principles. We, as parliamentarians, should be willing to put our heads on the chopping block when it comes to certain issues. We are not elected to sit here like lumps of concrete. We are here to inform people and develop good debate in our society so people have a broader knowledge of the issues. We cannot rely on the media.
I mentioned the article from the judicial conference in 2011 about problems with the media. Much of the tabloid media is looking for sensationalism, not depth, in what is happening. They want to sell papers; I understand that. In many cases journalism today, unfortunately, is about the dollar - trying to sell papers to make a profit. In some cases it is more about amusement and excitement and, when it comes to deep analysis of serious subjects, some of our newspapers are lacking.
Madam Speaker, that means we, as members of parliament, have a bigger responsibility to inform the public. I am worried if we believe because the public said something we should go along. Developing our legislation and policies that way in this parliament is not good for the future of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 13)
DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 14)
(Serial 13)
DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 14)
Continued from 5 December 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support this sensible bill. From time to time legislative instruments are found to have errors in them which mean they do not provide the full protection intended. In this circumstance our legislative instrument does not provide full protection for victims of domestic violence where the offender is on bail because there is ambiguity around the bail conditions.
This comes from a loophole discovered in New South Wales and tested in the case of Lawson v Dunlevy where conditions of bail required the plaintiff not to consume alcohol for any reason and submit to a breath test when requested by a police officer. The latter, in particular, was found to be, essentially, out of order and not lawful. Whilst that has been resolved and the New South Wales legislation amended, for the Northern Territory it means magistrates have not been enforcing bail conditions; in particular, compliance with bail conditions whilst there was ambiguity in our own legislation.
Forgive me if I oversimplify this, but my understanding is, essentially we are seeking to fix a loophole to ensure that when conditions of bail are set they are very clear and ensure the offender is doing the right thing. That includes being able to put conditions on bail which reduce the risk of harm to the victim.
Madam Speaker, the opposition supports these bills. We welcome them, as we welcome anything which continues to protect the victims of domestic and family violence. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their attention to this matter. There is nothing I can say to add weight to this debate.
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
Sentenced to a Job
Sentenced to a Job
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, having a light workload today, I thought I would rise to my feet. Not having said anything before the House today, I felt it was necessary for me to participate.
I inform the House of the government’s proposals in relation to maintenance of prisoners within the penal system of the Northern Territory. This ministerial statement is deliberately concise as it pertains to one component of Corrections in the Northern Territory, namely, asking prisoners to work. The value of work itself will be the touchstone of this government’s approach to reducing the unacceptably high rates of recidivism. I would like to sentence prisoners to a job and, thereby, a future.
Upon becoming Minister for Correctional Services, I read various philosophical works to seek guidance as to what Corrections in the Northern Territory should look like. Basically, there are two schools of philosophy: retributive and utilitarianism. Whilst I found this research enlightening, albeit brief, I am unsure if those esoteric philosophies will have the effect of informing me, as Minister for Correctional Services in the Northern Territory, in any useful way.
Nevertheless, crime and punishment is an issue which has followed humanity for as long as humans have existed. In our civilised world, we live in an environment where people expect punishment to be meted out to the guilty but in a fashion which engenders faith in a system and civility. I do not subscribe to the lex talionis or ‘eye for eye’ principle of justice alone. There must be a philosophy of correction in the mix. After all, I am not the minister for punishing the hell out of people; I am Minister for Correctional Services.
I have said in this House before the philosophy of this government will require eligible prisoners to work. Work is a fundamental form of salvation for people because a person with a job or meaningful employment understands, in the core of their being, what self-worth is about. All too often in the Northern Territory there are people who have never experienced holding down a job long enough to know the immense tangible/intangible benefits that come with a job rather than just a pay packet. Identity, self-worth, self-belief can all come from making your own way in the world and having a productive life.
Inside the Corrections system, particularly once this new gaol is open - I will not go into what an unmitigated disaster that is because of the former Labor government’s incapacity to effectively manage the contract surrounding the gaol - I will ensure the value of work is a fundamental component in the rehabilitation of all offenders capable of working. In short, every prisoner will be expected, one way or another, to do some work. In effect, a prisoner will be sentenced to a job to secure themself a future.
The government is aware you cannot force prisoners to work. However, we will not replicate the current welfare attitude where individuals expect something for nothing. Under this government, prisoners will have to earn or work for their privileges. Every privilege granted in the Northern Territory prison system will be earned, which means a prisoner who chooses not to work within the system can expect the bare minimum of custodial requirements. Every prisoner who wants more than the bare minimum will be given the opportunity to work and earn the privileges they seek. This will apply to maximum, medium, low security 1, low security 2 and open prisoners.
Many of the prisoners currently in our system are not violent offenders. Of the adults sentenced to prison in 2011–12, 44% were for non-violent offences. In my experience as a police officer in the Northern Territory, having arrested perhaps 1000 people, I would probably have dealt with only five or six bad, evil, wicked people. As for the rest, whilst all those convicted were guilty of offences, in truth they were guilty of stupidity. They did stupid things often under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. They were still responsible for their own actions, as we would expect them to be. However, many were not truly bad villains.
Consequently, my personal experience will be reflected in the general population of a gaol, and having visited the gaols since becoming Minister for Correctional Services, the assumption remains valid. It follows that the vast majority of prisoners in our system, once straight or sober, are no longer in the mindset which led them to the offence and, consequently, into prison in the first place. Nevertheless, we have a classification system in place to ensure we identify prisoners who should have certain liberties extended to them and we also identify prisoners who should have liberties taken away.
Prisoners who demonstrate a capacity to improve themselves will be given every opportunity to do so. Nevertheless, improvements are earned. This government has increased by two the number of prison work gangs in the community. The community responds well to the work gangs because they see prisoners paying their debt to the community. This gives people comfort that prisoners are serving their time in a manner which makes them accountable for their actions. It is common for a prisoner to leave the prison system with no education, no job, no home, no money and no capacity, at a mental or emotional level, to overcome the situation. They have no opportunity other than their own limited horizons and experience to change their life. In the absence of that opportunity they default to what they know, which is what put them into prison in the first place.
I ask honourable members to imagine a world where a prisoner is released from prison because they were able to tell the parole board they had been working in a job for a number of months, had money in the bank, and were part of a system which would ensure they had some type of accommodation available when they left prison. Such a prisoner is much less likely to become a recidivist than the inmates currently leaving the system and returning in droves.
The almost 50% recidivism rate is arguably underestimated. A recidivist is someone who commits the same or similar offence within two years of being released. Many of our prisoners return to custody after committing different offences or offences outside the two-year period required for the definition. In truth, recidivism rates are likely to be substantially higher.
I am sure all members would agree whatever figure is used it is an unacceptably high rate. Also, that it is important to create an environment where we can release prisoners who have repaid their debt to society and are able to productively integrate into the community and, most importantly, are work-ready. Not all prisoners will be able to take advantage of such a circumstance. Some prisoners will be in custody for a short time and it is difficult to find them a job. Remand prisoners do not stand convicted of any offence and, unless they volunteer, will not be available to do any work. However, many prisoners are classified as LS2 - low security 2 - or open prisoners.
When in opposition, I read the classification manual used by Northern Territory Correctional Services to understand the process. I acknowledge the former Minister for Corrections, the member for Barkly, for his assistance in this area. Understanding the classification process and the prison population enables this government to assertively engage in this new policy.
I am pleased to announce to the House today this government engaged in a trial Sentenced to a Job program mooted by the former government but not truly understood in its capacity to make change. Nevertheless, from Day 1, I enthusiastically adopted this program and sought to place prisoners in working environments.
The trial Sentenced to a Job program initially saw 18 people released from daily custody to work. It has now expanded to 30 prisoners released from custody on a daily basis. So far, I am pleased to report, we have not lost a single prisoner due to absconding. So far, employers have been very happy with the prisoners they have been employing. The Sentenced to a Job program is not convict labour. The prisoners who take advantage of the program have real jobs for real pay – they are being paid award wages for the work they are doing.
It may surprise members to learn one prisoner is working in a professional organisation in town - a role one would consider a white collar job. Many other prisoners participating in the program do not have high levels of literacy or numeracy but, nevertheless, have found productive work. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Foxy Robinson, known to all members of this House, for embracing this program.
I spoke to a prisoner working at one of Foxy’s organisations who told me, because of the opportunities he had been given, this was the best thing that had happened to him in his entire life. Such a response has a far greater weight than any academic analysis. This government accepts there is an element of risk in this program - we could lose prisoners who escape; the opportunity to escape could not be more obvious. Nevertheless, the experience of the trial program has been these prisoners have chosen not to escape but take advantage of the opportunity provided.
To give members comfort, one example is a prisoner who has graduated through the Sentenced to a Job program and been released. That prisoner had a job with a company and, upon release from prison, was told he could continue working with the organisation. The organisation is so impressed with the program it decided to take on a second prisoner using the first prisoner as a mentor.
It is explained to employers when they take prisoners on they can, because of the casual arrangement, terminate the employment at any time should they feel the prisoner is not up to standard. So far, that has not occurred.
The Sentenced to a Job program is designed to get people job-ready and into jobs before they leave prison. However, they are still contributors to the community in a tangible way. Five per cent of their income is quarantined for the Victims Assistance Fund, and a further $125 per week is retained to pay board. The rest of the money is placed into a trust pending their release with the exception of a small amount, depending on the prisoner, which they can use inside the prison.
A prisoner with a full-time job on award wages could be earning $600 to $700 per week. The Victims Assistance Fund is a voluntary component; however, if they choose not to pay it they will not be eligible for the program. The board contribution is a compulsory component of the program reinforcing the prisoner’s understanding they have to pay their way in life. The money they can spend in the prison will, essentially, make them the richest people there. This makes the work program an attractive option to other prisoners. The effect is people towards the end of their sentence are gaining more liberty with their spending power inside the prison, and understand they will have thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of dollars available to them the day they leave prison. We hope they use that money wisely. However, a free person in this society is a free person; if they choose to use that money for other purposes it is a matter for themselves and their family. Nevertheless, we continue to work hard to ensure we have successful outcomes.
I can say now the trial Sentenced to a Job program has been successful beyond my wildest expectations. We look forward to expanding this program and are cautious the classification of prisoners means we do not see the wrong people getting into the program. It is important to clarify sex offenders are not eligible for this program. This program is about giving people about to be released a new chance in life, one they would probably otherwise not known.
I ask honourable members to engage in a mental exercise. Imagine a person from Yuendumu or Beswick going through the NT prison system. They have not had the opportunities many other Territorians have had in life and their education is often not of a standard attractive to an employer. We place them four, five or six months prior to the end of their sentence in a tyre workshop. They learn how to work in that environment but, being a prisoner, being Aboriginal, and not being a good communicator with other people in the workshop, they feel awkward and alien because they are in an alien environment.
I will tell you what I believe humans are about. Before too long in that environment - I know this for a fact - this person would be invited to sit at the lunch room and share their lunch. On Day 2, they will be feeling awkward and alien but becoming more familiar with the people around them. After a week, they will continue going to work. Their experience will tell them this is not necessarily a scary place, but one where people can be friendly and accept them irrespective of their background.
I ask you to project forward, honourable members, to a period after several months. The routine of going to work will be familiar to the prisoner and they know their job. They will, without question, join other workers at the lunch table and feel a sense of belonging in a workplace which they have never known before. The government hopes that sense of belonging will engender in them a sense of pride, self-worth and usefulness that, in many instances, these people would never have known. Something like that should be the catalyst for a life-changing series of decisions.
As they experience more work in that environment, particularly after they have been released from custody and continue work, they will discover a liberty far greater than they have known as they are economically independent but, more importantly, emotionally and psychologically independent in a way they never understood previously.
That is the point of the program - what we are trying to do. The government believe in this. This government has a liberal disposition and believes in personal responsibility and that people should be answerable for their crimes. Nevertheless, we also believe a person truly at liberty is so because they have earned the right to be so. Such a lesson is invaluable and will teach prisoners subject to it a lesson of personal values in philosophy where people become responsible and answerable only to themselves and, moreover, are proud to do so.
I commend this statement to honourable members of this House because I know all members will see it as good, sound policy which will build futures.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the minister’s first ministerial statement on Corrections. It is important the Northern Territory hears his ideas and philosophies on Corrections because it is clear we are going to see many more incarcerations and bucket loads of correction under his watch, given the bill just passed in this House around mandatory sentencing. That will see many more people in our Corrections facilities.
It is important to know where the minister is coming from. He is clearly the action minister of his government and highly interventionist; strongly driven by his own personal experiences and world view of the need for correction. The previous government, particularly during the time my colleague, the member for Barkly, was Corrections minister, well-understood this is a key area of government policy fundamental to the administration of justice, community safety, and the wellbeing of the Northern Territory.
That is why we developed our new era in Corrections and sought to broaden the tool box available for dealing with people sentenced to prison – mainstream prison or through the juvenile justice system - with the fundamental objective of meeting community expectations in penalty and the real focus and effort to reduce recidivism.
Under Labor, a key part of the new era in Corrections were the key initiatives: the new Doug Owston Correctional Centre well under construction; the new forensic mental health unit and improved facilities for offenders with mental health issues; the open security prisoner supported accommodation unit; the visiting elders centre; and the multi-classification correctional centre. All were critical infrastructure necessary for the delivery of the new minister’s agenda. We are happy, as the former Labor government, to have set this up for him to step into.
It is telling the minister began his statement with a short homily on the philosophy underpinning different approaches to Corrections. However, I am intrigued by his suggestion employment programs for prisoners are fundamental to their salvation. I understand developing new skills, dealing with alcohol and substance abuse issues and building self-esteem and life skills through employment programs are important to successful re-entry to society and a reduction in recidivism. We, on this side, agree with that. However, to say this is the path to personal salvation is an odd turn of phrase.
The minister said too often in the Northern Territory there are people who have never experienced holding down a job long enough to know the immense intangible benefits that come with a job other than a pay packet. We, on this side, have always understood the benefit to people and the flow-on to families through employment and the dignity of work our former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, often spoken of.
As a parliament, we share a responsibility to work as hard as we can to develop employment opportunities for our citizens, particularly Territorians living in regional and remote communities and those not participating in the mainstream economy but surviving day to day through demand sharing from family and the welfare economy. All on this side of the House have enjoyed the benefits of education and employment and aim to contribute to family and community wellbeing as a result of that.
That is why I am keen to hear from other ministers and members representing bush seats how they plan to work together to improve health, education, employment, and the opportunities in our bush communities to grow and strengthen them and their capacity at the individual, family and community level. It is only through capacity building that people will build lives which allow them to choose what pathway they want to follow. We have not seen a great deal of action in that area from the new government, rather an increase in the cost of living which is hitting hard upon our poorest families.
As I mentioned in debate yesterday, whilst many people are leaving the Northern Territory because it is too costly to live here, one element of the community not going anywhere is our remote Indigenous communities. They are people’s home, their country, and they are there for life, generation after generation. It is worrying how these families will cope with the increased costs of living, not the least of which is the debacle around increased power costs but, more importantly, communication as to how people can deal with that.
I would love to hear an explanation for putting drunks back on our streets, allowing people open slather access to alcohol and, with it, the consequent increase in humbug and criminal behaviour contributing to an increase in the gaol population. How does opening up the rivers of grog help reduce alcohol-related crime? How does that translate into consequent gaoling for alcohol-related offences and, of course, back on the cycle of recidivism? Perhaps establishing drinking clubs out bush and linking access to alcohol to work may be an initiative some are considering. I am sure we will talk more about this.
However, can the minister explain how budget cuts to education, particularly remote education, will help us on the pathway to full employment for all our citizens? The minister has a lead role to play here because he holds the important portfolio of Education. We know the core of what sets people on a path for life where they have choice and opportunity is education. We have always said, and will continue to do so, if people can get their children to school every day they will access a quality education. However, given the cuts we are seeing in education, I am concerned about that pathway through education, VET programs and training, and the opportunities for young people once they move through school.
The member for Barkly spoke about encouraging young people to take up the opportunities happening through INPEX and recognises there are families for whom leaving their community is not an option; they want to stay on their community. What are the options for those young people after leaving school and the connection to work in their own community?
If the minister is serious about finding ways to address non-violent offenders’ health and substance issues and support them to transition to work, he has to give the SMART Court more time to demonstrate the value of an alternative to sentencing - an alternative pathway to keep non-violent offenders out of the Corrections system. At the end of last year he announced it was to be abolished to save $4.2m.
I find it ironic to be talking about Corrections and the Sentenced to a Job program. The idea of the SMART Court is it puts people on a pathway to a job. I had a lengthy conversation last week with Ruth Oakden, Senior Chaplain and Second Step Program Manager with a special employment program run by Toll Holdings. Hopefully, I will be meeting her when she comes to the Northern Territory at the end of this month and, hopefully, visits Nhulunbuy because Toll Marine operates in Nhulunbuy through to Groote Eylandt. Essentially, they run the Second Step program which deals with people who, as a result of substance abuse, misuse or alcohol addiction, are trying to break the cycle of addiction, get their lives back on the straight and narrow and on a pathway to a job and, with it, security, financial sustainability and choices in life.
This is a positive option and a powerful program yet the Attorney-General is ready to throw it out because it costs too much and he does not believe, after 18 months, it has worked. He made that assessment with no formal evaluation and ears closed to those asking him to reconsider, including NAAJA and the Chief Justice, who is very supportive of the SMART Court program. If we are serious about getting offenders into a job - it does not matter if it is in a Corrections facility - what about alternative options like the SMART Court which is also about getting people into a job? It is incredibly short-sighted to consider throwing out the SMART Court. Is the Attorney-General also meeting with Ms Oakden? She wrote to him on 17 January and forwarded a copy of her letter to me.
The key theme of the minister’s statement is he aims to sentence prisoners to a job to secure a future for them. Work and employment programs in our Corrections system are important and the minister acknowledges, almost reluctantly, current activities are initiatives mooted by the former government. Early in 2009, when I was not long a member, with the announcement of the new prison, never having been in a prison in my life I took it upon myself to go through Berrimah prison and the Don Dale Centre. I was escorted by Mr Ken Middlebrook, now the CEO.
I was horrified by what I saw going through Berrimah prison. Quite apart from the very old physical environment - they are not meant to be pleasant places to be, God forbid - I was horrified by what I saw. Obviously, there were many prisoners and spaces intended for training which had been converted to dormitories. Essentially, this place has outgrown what it was originally designed for. I am not a softie but am a humanitarian and I know people in Berrimah prison. Sadly, they are family members of constituents of mine, Indigenous and non-Indigenous. That place is awful and if we are serious about rehabilitating prisoners they need to be in a more modern facility which lends itself to rehabilitation. That is not to mention the conditions prison officers are expected to work in as well.
It is only since I have taken on the responsibility of shadow for Corrections I sought, in November, the opportunity to look through the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, which is much more modern. It is full but has facilities to allow prisoners to be engaged in meaningful activities, learning new skills, workshops - that is where they produce all the number plates for the Northern Territory. People were building trailers, doing mechanical courses, hands-on stuff, a credit to the former Minister for Corrections for establishing and building these schemes so by the time people leave prison they have skills to get a job.
Obviously, jobs in prisons are important, but let us not forget literacy and numeracy. I am familiar with the QuickSmart program. I have a child who went through it a couple of years ago with great success. However, those programs allow people to do things like paint in an artistic sense. I strongly support Darwin Community Legal Service and the annual event it holds - the exhibition of prisoner artwork. What is that exhibition called?
Mr McCarthy: Behind the Wire.
Ms WALKER: Behind the Wire. I am disappointed I have not managed to make it to those exhibitions. I missed the one in December when it was opened at the Supreme Court. It is a really important outlet for people. Let us face it, being an artist is a job and if you are good it can generate income.
I have not been to the Barkly Work Camp. Unfortunately, nor has the Leader of the Opposition, so I will give you plenty of notice, Attorney-General, when I want to visit it. I am hoping to get down that way in the next couple of months and am keen to see what has been happening there. Again, that is an initiative brought forward and to fruition by the former Labor government under the stewardship of the member for Barkly. I look forward to seeing further work camps develop whether it is Katherine - I would love to see one in northeast Arnhem Land but, for the time being, we will make do with the mobile work camp which comes out around Garma time - a very successful program. It is costly but there is much value to it.
The success of any support or programs for individuals has to take account of the circumstances that those individual have to work in on release from prison. Things like the person’s family circumstances, the accommodation available to underpin a new start, the economic demands on the individual on release from prison and their personal health. Adjacent to the Barkly Work Camp is a facility – what is the word for it Gerry …
Mr Wood: A pony club.
Ms WALKER: No, it is not a pony club. It is like a halfway house that allows prisoners on release to be somewhere for an adjustment period.
All these things will ultimately influence the success of the pathway from Corrections to full-time employment. Obviously, release of people once they have served time in a Corrections facility back to their community needs to be carefully managed to ensure people, as best we can, are prepared for that release and get back to their community and do not stray off on a path which keeps them away from home and may see them reoffend and end up back in the Corrections facility they were just been released from. Interestingly, the minister did not address all those things in his statement. Perhaps he had other things to focus on. He dwelt on the importance of individual responsibility, but he was silent on other issues which, ultimately, affect the life journey of any individual.
The ministerial statement was big on philosophy. It was an opportunity for the minister to preach how things will be different now he has his hands on the wheel. The statement noted prisoners will have to earn or work for their privileges. It would have been good to hear more about that and what is meant when the minister said:
- … a prisoner who chooses not to work within the system can expect the bare minimum of custodial requirements.
I am keen to hear more about ‘the bare minimum of custodial requirements’ and this new classification system being introduced into our Corrections system.
The minister said prisoners who demonstrate they have a capacity to improve themselves will be given every opportunity to do so. How will that capacity be assessed? What standards will be applied? Are there to be two categories of prisoner - those who enjoy an abundance of riches and benefits, the ones the minister says will be relatively rich in the prison system; and a second underclass, potentially a larger number of prisoners, on the bare minimum and beyond salvation?
Let us return to the more positive aspects of this scheme; that is, support for people to develop skills, establish personal goals, develop a financial stake to leave prison, find employment and enjoy all the benefits of productive employment and life in our great Northern Territory. How will the minister’s vision support a prisoner on release? How will they access practical support in the transition to work, especially when on the other side of the ledger we see cuts to NGOs and social support services for Territorians and, as mentioned earlier, that big whacking cut of $4.2m from the SMART Court?
How is the Minister for Regional Development and Indigenous Advancement working with the Minister for Correctional Services to reduce the hurdles on the ground to provide more employment opportunities in our bush towns and less recidivism? That goes back to what I was talking about earlier - going to the heart of what is happening in communities to build capacity for people to be in charge of their lives.
What is the Minister for Indigenous Advancement doing about anything, nearly six months into government, except offering an armchair commentary from the sidelines? I, unfortunately, have not seen the minister in northeast Arnhem Land yet. In fact, I have not seen any ministers other than the Chief Minister. I look forward to seeing the Minister for Health visit. Many people will want to chat with him about scrapping the medi-hotel. The people of Laynhapuy Homelands are disappointed two board meetings have come and gone where they were expecting the Minister for Indigenous Advancement and the Chief Minister and, sadly, they have not been able to attend those meetings. Let us hope it is not too far away.
I look at how much work the Attorney-General and Minister for Correctional Services has on his plate and the vigour, energy, and action he has in his portfolio. He is on the phone ringing employers saying, ‘Can you take a bunch?’ He was dashing out of Cabinet to attend the scene of a bus crash worried about what had happened to students involved in an accident. He is donning the robes and ...
Mr Elferink: Is it a bad thing to go to the scene of an accident?
Ms WALKER: I am commending you for your commitment and energy. I would like to see it in a few more of your colleagues, including the Minister for Indigenous Advancement...
Mr Elferink: I love my job and love the opportunity I have been blessed with.
Ms WALKER: That is very apparent, minister.
Ms WALKER: I will comment on the requirement that 5% of the income from a prisoner’s work is garnisheed for the Victims Assistance Fund. The minister said this is voluntary but if you do not agree to the donation you are not eligible for the program. They accuse us of spin! Why be bashful? Why not say straight out this is a requirement for participants in the work scheme…
Mr Elferink: Because we cannot force them.
Ms WALKER: You will address that. We also note prisoners will be required to pay board for their time in prison. Do they enjoy a better standard of accommodation to those who do not pay board? Is this a way of trying to scavenge more revenue any way you can? If you were truly serious about helping people move on to a more productive life and not reoffend, would it not be better for funds to be quarantined to help with that move after prison?
A prisoner on the way out does need a hand up, especially with family commitments, accommodation, and the rising cost of living. It is expensive enough in remote areas already, but to put up power by 30% - we have families in the dark in some homes because their power cards are not lasting as long.
Their own independent financial support established through their own labour is the way it should be. The minister spoke about prisoners on the work program being more economically independent but also, and more importantly, more emotionally and psychologically independent in a way they never understood previously.
Of course, we encourage these pathways to a more productive and positive life, but say again this statement dwells on the individual. I heard nothing about how the program operates with an eye to the family circumstances of individuals. How is that taken into account and how will transition into productive family and community life be supported? How will the prisoner be supported to maximise the benefits of the program and how will he or she be able to use that opportunity to maximise its benefits in the context of individual family and community circumstances?
I am pleased you find it so amusing, member for Fong Lim.
Do we build up expectations, pat them on the back and send them home hoping they have learnt a lesson with not much more than our very best wishes for the future…
Mr Tollner: And a job. Oddly enough, a job comes in their somewhere.
Ms WALKER: Not if you have been in there for three months, unfortunately, under the new mandatory sentencing. It is highly unlikely in three months there will be the opportunity for that level of outcome.
However, we are pleased to see the new minister picking up on the work of the member for Barkly in his time as Minister for Corrections and Labor’s very progressive reforms. We are happy to see you riding on the coat-tails of that, minister, because we set it up for you. We will all benefit in hearing from other government ministers in this debate, as well as backbench members, on how work within their own constituency or portfolio areas aims to create more employment for all our citizens, reduce alcohol-related offences and, importantly, reduce recidivism and the overall gaol population.
Minister, your office was one of the first I went to seeking an incoming brief around shadow responsibilities. I had the Corrections briefing several months ago but I know you are doing things around youth. I am a little worried you call them boot camps, but I will get to that briefing. I will also get to the Barkly Work Camp.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to any work you are doing to increase employment for prisoners after gaol, provide them with life skills such that, hopefully, we will not see them reoffend, and get them off the cycle of recidivism. Thank you, minister, for bringing this statement before the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for his statement. I am a great supporter of prisoners working. I also agree if people do not work there should be some consequence, bearing in mind some people will not be able to work for various reasons and there should be some allowance for that. People who go to prison should be able to work. There is a cost to that, and I hope the government has something in mind in the budget to cover that because we know from the day work groups it is not cheap. We also have the Batchelor Institute training centre at Berrimah prison. It is a great contribution which gets people ready to leave prison with some skills. Those areas also need to be pushed along with what you are talking about today.
We can look for points on who did what, but before this government won the election prisoners were going out to work. I have seen prisoners at the Tivendale Road bus stop ready for work and they come back at the end of day. It was occurring during the previous government’s term and is great to see …
Mr Elferink: Not to this level.
Mr WOOD: People have been going to work. I am commenting, minister, that it is expanding now and is a great way forward. I spent some time in Ohio and hope one day, minister, you might look at other prisons. I have seen about nine different prisons in Australia, most of them not …
Mr Elferink: Start pleading not guilty!
Mr WOOD: If they had a choice of judge they might not have to go to gaol, they might have home detention.
There are different forms of prison and one is a therapeutic community. I visited two in Ohio and they are certainly another option. People in that prison went out to work during the day. People were working for the council, one gentleman was working at the local pizza shop, and a couple of people were working at the lumber yards. It is not new but is something we can take on more and more in the Northern Territory.
The member for Nhulunbuy raised some interesting questions. Working prisoners should pay board because they are receiving an income. It is expensive to feed and look after prisoners and if they have the luxury of going out to earn a wage, part of that wage should pay for their ‘accommodation’. It is an excellent idea.
The complementary area to what you are doing is education. It is no good sending out prisoners if their basic literacy and numeracy skills are very low. That is one of the difficulties, especially with short-term prisoners. It is one of the good outcomes of the new prison. I have visited Berrimah prison and say to people who criticise the new prison, if they believe our old prison is suitable I will go he. It is a dump and needs upgrading to a standard which would, hopefully, contribute to reducing the number of prisoners. Education at Berrimah prison is a number of classrooms taking up the original hall and the standard of facilities was not what you would expect if you were serious about changing people’s lives.
It is different in Alice Springs where there are more purpose-built facilities. Will there be any educational requirements before people go out to work or are you expecting them to do labouring type jobs? Are you looking to upskill them as they go out to work so they can move up the ladder a little?
I am also a great supporter of industries within prison. What are the government’s plans for the prison farm? It has spoken about whether the mandatory alcohol rehabilitation centre will be there. Where a mandatory alcohol rehabilitation centre should be located should not be decided yet. There needs to be much more discussion with CAAPS, FORWAARD and Amity Community Services before we decide on the type of place and where it would go in relation to mandatory rehabilitation of people with an alcohol problem.
I hope the new prison will develop industries. There was discussion about a bakery. I have been to the prison and ...
Mr Elferink: We have one of those coming.
Mr WOOD: What sometimes bothers me is industry’s concern about the prison industry competing. You have 1000 Territorians and there is a requirement to give them as much work as possible. If that means industries in the prison, so be it. Someone recently mentioned the vegetable garden and some of the local suppliers might be a bit crook about that. That is a non-argument. The ability to supply enough fruit and vegetables for all prisoners in the Territory should be accommodated. You have the temperate climate of Alice Springs - not always temperate, but a drier climate - a not so humid climate in Katherine and a tropical climate in the Darwin region. There is an opportunity to supply much fruit and vegetables and create employment.
I visited a prison in Western Australia when I toured with Ken Middlebrook and it was great to see. One place had a dairy, the other had an abattoir and supplied meat for all the prisons in Western Australia. There is the opportunity, even with the new prison, to run some cattle. You can do that in Katherine and also at the new Darwin prison.
Work camps have been a pet of mine for a long time. I visited the Wyndham work camp a long time ago and thought what a great idea. I also visited one in the wheat belt on the road to Kalgoorlie. It showed how great and how beneficial work camps can be to the communities. I thought about going to the meeting at Adelaide River recently to show some support and say to people in Adelaide River, if they are concerned about work camps - the one in Adelaide River is meant to be a temporary work camp - if they have the opportunity to go to Wyndham they could visit the work camp and see all the great work prisoners do.
They need to be expanded and I am keen to know what the government’s program will be. Technically, the previous government had one for Katherine which was to be built in conjunction with the prison farm. The member for Nhulunbuy mentioned one at Nhulunbuy. There is also great opportunity to have mobile work camps similar to those in Western Australia. They take the toilets, showers and a kitchen with them and people live out bush.
Considering the issues we have in national parks and such places, there are opportunities for people to work, whether it is controlling noxious weeds, building paths, repairing fences, cleaning up signs or rehabilitating facilities in the parks. There is plenty of opportunity and that is the way we should go.
The government talks about boot camps. That it is the wrong name. We did not call Wildman River a boot camp; we called it a youth camp, if anything. The idea of a boot camp - climbing up a vertical mountain in blistering hot weather with shorts, shirts, and a flimsy pair of runners toughens people up. You want something more considered and you may be doing that. There are opportunities, with such a big pastoral industry in the Northern Territory, that some youth work camps could be on stations where people learn skills, get some education, and have time under the stars to clear their heads and think about what they want to do in life.
It is not about trying to brutalise people into being good, it is giving people a chance to think about their future. Hopefully, the so-called boot camp should - I would rather call them youth camps - have a slightly different focus than we see on television.
I do not know how this will pan out. There will be a big cost to this because people have to get up to go to work. You have to find jobs for people. To some extent that will be limited if they are not able to work outside the prison - there are only so many people. We have to develop more industries.
I will give you an example. Muswellbrook prison farm - Ken Middlebrook will tell you about it because he helped set it up – repaired Education department furniture. Schools sent their desks and chairs to this workshop. Those chairs and tables were stripped down, cleaned up, brought back to pretty well new then sold back to schools at half the price. Those people were learning about accounting and business practice because they had to have inventories, invoices, receipts etcetera. They also learnt painting skills, repairing, putting Laminex tops on - all those things. They learnt different skills in prison.
Another interesting place I visited was Port Phillip Prison which, in some ways, is very similar in design to the prison at Howard Springs. Their prisoners were learning to make T-shirts. They were not any T-shirts; they were quite skilled in producing good quality shirts with good quality motifs. In fact, Virgin Airways bought a large number of shirts and were backing them. A transport company in Melbourne was also backing them. They were learning computer skills and phone and Internet purchases. These prisoners were in for fairly serious crimes. Companies such as Virgin Airways guaranteed to buy X number of T-shirts from them and the transport company - I cannot say it was Fox; I am not sure which one it was - guaranteed if those prisoners wanted a job they would get one.
Your statement today, minister, is great. The detail is something to work out as you go along. There is much land at the new prison farm which could be developed for industry. There is great potential for developing more industries. I totally agree, minister, if we can give work to people – the statement is very philosophical; I do not get as philosophical - work is good for the soul, the dignity of the human being, and it is really important we do this. The hardest part will be when they leave prison.
The member for Fong Lim said, ‘Have a job’. If you go to Yuendumu and there is no job, that is a problem ...
Mr Tollner: Give them jobs in Yuendumu? They have been given jobs where the jobs are, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Hang on. If you go home and there is no job - let me finish. The other side of the equation - minister, you have said the same thing – is we have to get rid of welfare. If someone returns to Yuendumu the council can give them a job. Why? Because the federal government decided to churn things around and give the welfare money to the council to top it up. We did it on Bathurst Island. That was years ago but we employed everybody. We employed them all through the council and found jobs for them.
The danger is you will send people back to a place where there is no job and they go back on welfare and get into trouble. It is not as simple as saying there will be jobs for people; there might not be. They might not have the skills from a three-month stint to leave their community and get a mining job. What happens after people leave prison is a real issue which needs addressing. It is not easy.
It applies in other prisons. When I visited Muswellbrook, Glen Innes or Port Phillip, the issue was funding care for prisoners after they were released. A big issue in the Territory is how many prisoners have someone follow them up after release asking, ‘How are you going?’ How many people go to Yuendumu and check there? We fail to ensure they know someone still cares about them. It could be Yuendumu, Howard Springs or Fannie Bay, you need to follow-up; it is essential. Give them a job, but ensure we do not finish when they leave prison because that is where we fail.
The bigger picture is there will be alcohol and a lack of employment and education. I am unsure what the government’s policies will be. A good policy would be to try to turn things around. It will not fix things, but it is an important tool in giving people a leg up in life.
Minister, I congratulate you on the statement. I do not agree with everything you said. You had a shot at the new prison saying it was an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps I could invite you to a PAC meeting which is looking at that at the moment. I am sure the PAC would love to hear your reasons for it being an unmitigated disaster.
It is a big new prison and its original cost was higher than now. Any new prison, such as Port Phillip Prison, is not cheap because they require highly-sensitive electronic equipment. They are designed to be managed efficiently and it is not a case of just bricks and mortar. The company building it specialises in prisons. Yes, it is a lot of money but some of the criticism of the prison, true or not - the PAC is looking at it at the moment and getting detailed information. I cannot tell you any more than that. We should hold off criticism until the PAC completes its report which will have the details and documentation we need to make that decision.
Madam Speaker, regardless of that, I thank the minister for his statement today. We can talk more about prisons, but I appreciate this statement and thank you for bringing it to parliament.
Mr TOLLNER (Health): Madam Speaker, first, well done to our Attorney-General. He makes us on this side of the Chamber very proud because of the wonderful work he has done.
It has been interesting listening to the last few speakers. The member for Nelson was quite interesting to listen to. He cannot understand why the new prison is an unmitigated disaster. To me, it is self-explanatory: $60m per year before we have put one warden or one prisoner in it. If that is not an unmitigated disaster I do not know what is. The member for Nelson said, ‘Prisons these days cost a fortune - very expensive things’. Tell Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona that prisons have to cost a fortune. Sheriff Joe knows how to deal with prisoners. He gets them working and does not spend much money on fancy buildings and five-star resort style accommodation. In Arizona, Sheriff Joe gets results and has people working from day 1. He has become world famous for his tactics and strategies in dealing with prisoners. Many places around the world, particularly Australia, could take a leaf out of Sheriff Joe’s book. I am not telling the Minister for Correctional Services how to do his job, but it would be worthwhile looking seriously at some of the things Sheriff Joe does in Arizona and see if they might have application in the Northern Territory.
It was interesting listening to the member for Nhulunbuy. She seemed to say everything good must cost a lot of money because ...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: She seems to see hairs all over this because there is a lack of money going into the program. It is not costing much money, therefore it cannot be very good. This is the Labor way. During the last term I spent in this House, the former government’s measure of success was how much money it spent on programs. We were constantly told how much it was pouring into health, education, prisons and, at the end of the day, the poor government that wins office has to deal with those problems. Now the opposition is screaming blue murder because we do not keep the profligate spending going because we are not like drunken sailors throwing largesse everywhere. The new government recognises it has to do things differently. We cannot live beyond our means and have to come up with new ideas.
The program outlined in the minister’s statement is a fantastic example of how we can look at things in a different way. It is not complicated or difficult; it is very straightforward. The member for Nhulunbuy said he copied a Labor idea. I am sure he copied this idea from somewhere. I have not seen it in too many other places but if it was Labor’s idea why did they not do it? Actions speak louder than words. It is always easy to say, ‘We were going to do that,’ or ‘That was always in our plans’. If it was always in your plans, why did you not do it?
You cannot find much wrong with it so it had to be your idea. Why did you not commit to a program of trying to get prisoners into work? I have been to several sites where prisoners are working and they fit into the workforce well. They are working like Trojans and are valued by employers, their work colleagues, and are fitting into a social group of people at work. It is amazing to see how well the program is working. Someone told me that works well when you have low unemployment, but in times of high unemployment, such as with Labor governments, these things do not necessarily work because there is a large workforce and employers can pick and choose. Perhaps it is fortunate we have a low unemployment rate because it gives us an opportunity to help people.
I concur with the minister, it has been my long-held belief that the greatest form of welfare, rehabilitation, correction and salvation for people going off the rails is a job. It is the only thing you can do; to encourage people to get up in the morning and make breakfast, go to work, come home at night fagged out, dying to lie down and sleep, cook a meal - take personal responsibility.
For some reason the member for Nhulunbuy has a problem with the concept of personal responsibility. She said the minister’s ideas focus on the individual and what about the family? Hopefully, the entire family is not in gaol.
What about the family when a person is in gaol? One of the things courts take into account when sentencing people to gaol is the impact it will have on families. A prisoner coming out of a gaol with a job is the best thing a family could hope for, particularly if the person has only been in there for say three months. For three months they have been getting up at the crack of dawn, cleaning themselves up, having a wash, a bite to eat, getting to the job site and doing a hard day’s work and coming back to bed plum tuckered out and content. Do that for three months and all of a sudden you develop a work ethic! What a dreadful thing it would be if families had their loved one coming out of prison with a work ethic. You wonder why the member for Nhulunbuy complains about this program.
The member for Nelson said, ‘Why not get them jobs in their communities?’ In many communities there are no jobs. I have looked at job creation programs in remote communities for a long time and most are government creating work - an excuse to pay someone money to turn up and do something. Governments in this country have not really bitten the bullet in remote Indigenous communities and encouraged private enterprise to create opportunities for employment. Oddly enough, people have to move somewhere if they want a job.
The town I grew up in, Baralaba, country Queensland, 60 years ago was a thriving metropolis. It was a coal mining town with much activity and thousands of people. There would not be 100 people in that town today. It is practically a ghost town and there are towns all over Australia - I could name 20 off the top of my head - that once were thriving metropolises but are now small because the mine or some industry has shut down, the town closes and people move. People move to get work because when they work they can feed their families and have some self-esteem and self-worth. It also makes your existence on this planet worthwhile when you feel you are contributing - not just looking after yourself but doing your bit for society and the community in which you live. That is what this program is about.
I congratulate the minister for coming up with this so quickly into government. We are only six months in and are at the end of a trial program which seems to be working. I was stunned at how well it is working. It is getting out to Wickham Point and into parts of Berrimah where people are actively working, and seeing it in operation is amazing. I encourage members on the other side who have not had the chance to see the program in action to look at it. Even the former Corrections minister might be surprised at the success of this program.
The best form of welfare, salvation, getting people off drugs or alcohol is to give them some meaning in life and get them working. As Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and Policy, I am happy to inform the Chamber that the program introduced by the Minister for Correctional Services is similar to the way I see some of our alcohol rehabilitation programs working.
I understand some people’s brains are so addled and too far gone from alcohol abuse to ever contemplate permanent employment. However, many people simply need a break from the grog to clear their mind, do some work to develop a work ethic, and be given a little help and guidance. There is no doubt many people can also be put into paid employment. It will probably be the key performance indicator for any deliverer of rehabilitation services to meet. Ultimately, I want to see providers of rehabilitation service focused on getting patients into employment. The key to any rehabilitation program - whether it is drug, alcohol, or other substance abuse - has to be an element of work.
I am not interested in fluffy feel-good programs that talk about wellbeing. I am more interested in serious programs which try to get people work-ready and into paid employment. The best form of rehabilitation is a job, which goes without saying. It also goes without saying there has to be some assistance with transition from prison into the community. It is far easier to provide assistance when somebody has a job. Trying to put somebody back into the community with no hope of employment and unable to care for their individual needs is a difficult process. In some cases, you throw your hands up and wonder why you do it knowing full well they will quickly come back into contact with the criminal justice system or abuse alcohol or drugs.
I used to be alarmed at the way prisoners were treated. They were let out of Berrimah prison, given a cheque and sent on their way. The closest place they could cash that cheque was the local bottle shop. Of course, that - and any business – will not cash cheques unless there is a purchase. It was saddening to see the spin dryer – almost - in operation.
Some programs have continued over the years. OARS, a wonderful program, was run by a former prisoner who had problems rehabilitating some of his own practices. He scooted off with a lot of money. It was sad to see that program die. Some very well-meaning people have attempted to make it easier for prisoners to reintegrate into the community.
These programs do not have to cost much money. It is a shame the prison is being built where it is. I often laugh thinking about the member for Nelson. He is now the greatest supporter of this white elephant sitting in his electorate. He went to the 2008 election promising there would not be a new prison saying we did not need one.
Oddly enough, he also went to that election committing to open speed limits and a range of other things. He did not want the INPEX workers camp in his electorate. He rolled over on many things - the price of being kingmaker. Practically everything he asked for he did not get, which stumped me. People would say, ‘If we want government to do anything we better talk to Gerry’. Gerry asked for a few things, and I cannot think of a single thing he asked for and received, such as the swimming pool. He got an extra secretary and his council of love - a great deal of good that did! That is pretty well it; the secretary and the council of love. I recall there was even a hole in the ground for the swimming pool.
That was one of the key commitments he made, and he wanted Howard Springs Reserve cleaned up. That looks like a mad dictator’s scorched earth policy principle now. It is nothing like it used to be; it used to be a beautiful waterhole where you could swim and kick back with a barbecue. Half the trees are gone and there are no fish now. He blames it on pigs or bats. For whatever reason, they had to send bulldozers which ruined the place.
They seem to like him in Howard Springs. Perhaps they want a prison in their back yard, a 3500-person workers camp and a range of other things. I am sure they wanted speed limits. Regardless, Gerry got his way and became kingmaker.
However, it costs $60m a year before one prisoner or one prison warden steps foot into it. You wonder what we could do with $60m a year – an enormous array of things. Minister, how many work camps could we run with $60m a year? How many people could we get into employment with $60m a year to spend on work camps? We would empty our prisons pretty quickly and have one of the most productive populations in the developed world with $60m a year to spend on helping people into jobs. However, the former government decided it wanted a Taj Mahal, a great five-star hotel for prisoners in the member for Nelson’s back yard and the new government is lumped with it.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on a fine effort. I am sorry to say he has beaten me to the mark. I am keen to see something similar in the area of alcohol rehabilitation. However, good on him, he gets things done.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it is great to see the member for Fong Lim out of the back rooms and back in the saddle on the floor of parliament. We enjoy his contributions.
I support the minister’s statement, it is great. In contrast to marking Adrian Renzi down last night on his pathetic literary contribution, minister, you receive a distinction because you were able to put the philosophical argument into the statement. The metaphorical images you created were sensational. It was a great piece of work. It is important, though, to look at some aspects you may be able to improve on.
Berrimah prison is an albatross around your neck. You know that because the only way you will achieve what you have set out to - I congratulate you - is to take Northern Territory Correctional Services with you. They need the new multiclassification Correctional Services facility being built under the new way of doing business - the public/private partnership - where the deal is design, construct and maintain for 30 years. It is like buying a house for prisoners. It is not that easy, member for Fong Lim, because when you talk to Correctional Services, there are some seriously bad guys in there. It is not all about work camps; there are some bad guys. In that precinct you have a mental health forensic unit, a supported accommodation unit for prisoners transitioning into work, a visiting elders centre and a multiclassification Correctional Services facility.
The new prison will do the minister proud, not only because it will take the Correctional Services team with him, it will be the purpose-built infrastructure he needs to deliver his program. As the minister outlined in the statement, to move people around, maximise efficiencies and reduce costs you need purpose-built infrastructure, let alone the Labor fiscal stimulus strategy that kept the Territory alive and is delivering the jobs and social infrastructure to boot. Minister, you are lucky; you are going with it.
The other bonus - the jewel in the crown - is when you decommission Berrimah prison, development of that area will be spectacular. You will not be delivering 2000 affordable double container specials out there; you will have premier land to develop in Darwin, the jewel in the crown of the central peninsula area. You have two bangs for your buck there. The member for Fong Lim knows. He understands a good deal when he sees it and that will be another feather in the cap of whichever government is able to deliver. We will let the people decide that.
That is the Doug Owston multiclassification Correctional Facility and, minister, you are lucky to have that.
We spoke about the Barkly Work Camp and the member for Fong Lim said it all happened in the last five months. It is great to see it is still rolling out and I am not bitter.
Member for Stuart, you said Labor has done nothing for Aboriginal people. In Correctional Services alone we employed world best practice to address the most disadvantaged people in our community and were driving that forward. You took it off me and I am sad about that because I had another four-year plan where we were going to really turn it around. You have a good minister in charge now and we will be watching closely to see what happens under that watch.
The Barkly Work Camp is delivering jobs. It is a great concept and I will relay a story. During the election campaign I was grabbing fuel and a guy beat me to the servo every morning: a prisoner who rode his bike from the Barkly Work Camp to the BP service station. He was in the back room, came out in the Cheeky Dog uniform and was on the vacuum cleaner every morning at 5.55 am; I presume he started at 6 am. That is not a bad outcome, minister, and you are rolling that out so good on you.
I blew a couple of tyres on the Sandover Highway and had to do a mercy dash to Tennant Creek. Of the three prisoners who worked on the Toyota, two were sentenced prisoners and one was released and working full-time. That is a fantastic outcome. I could talk about the prisoners who work at the police station, the shire, the hospital and the culture centre. Minister, I have been talking to people around Tennant and you have to get them to Battery Hill. The Battery Hill Mining Centre represents a perfect opportunity. Your government ripped the guts out of it and the member for Greatorex has slashed and burnt both Nyinkka Nyunyu and the Battery Hill Mining Centre in Tennant Creek. You can save Battery Hill Mining Centre and have the best training facility right next door to the work camp. I will talk to you more about that and lobby strongly because we were doing that work. Unfortunately, the Tennant Creek Foundation has gone and the community is working hard to put together the Battery Hill Mining Centre. Corrections can be the best partner they ever had.
I will talk about the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education and the steel rolling mill. I am sure Foxy would be interested in it because he can incorporate that into his construction endeavours. The steel rolling mill is a fantastic project delivering real certification, training and outcomes. I will tell the minister a story about that. When we had some down time and were chasing new contracts, one of the lecturers had an interest in the arts so we started to explore that. They have made some of the best sculptures you will see in your life. Paul, I hope you are still there because what you were doing was sensational.
We duplicated that in the Alice Springs Correctional Centre and moved the art section into the industry section so artists could access industry skills: oxyacetylene welding and building skills, White Card construction and Certificate II and III in Construction accredited training. On one of my visits the prison officers were so proud to show me the bushfire fighting trailers they were building. It was a great project. I said, ‘How much would that trailer cost?’ and a prison officer was proud to tell me on the market today a basic trailer without firefighting gear would be worth about $1500. I said, ‘That is sensational’. The work was incredible.
The guys who made the 4 m crocodile could sell it for $50 000. I encouraged them to enter it into the NATSIA - the member for Nhulunbuy mentioned the Behind the Wire art exhibition. There are a few challenges, minister, you will find entering into NATSIA from a custodial environment, but do not leave it; revisit it because the trailer and the industry program were sensational. These guys can leave prison and command hundreds of thousands of dollars for their sculpture and become world-renowned artists because the talent is there. I hope to see the brolgas, the shark and the crocodile again. I look forward to what comes out of that workshop.
In relation to jobs, member for Fong Lim, you might be interested in the shed you noticed at East Point called The Defence of Darwin Experience and the new interpretive element of the Darwin Military Museum, that high-tech purpose-built, world-renowned Defence of Darwin Experience. TSC, the company that built it, was a specialist in the field. The other company was Convergence, which did the light and sound show. You had to go for specialists, not everybody could build that shed. I remember your contribution well.
We told them we wanted workers. We were doing what the minister is doing now, and crews of six guys were visiting that site every day from the start to the end of the project. Every day there were minimum crews of six guys, and some weeks more. The first time I visited four prisoners were tying steel, two prisoners were finishing off footings trenches and one prisoner was on a theodolite. The guys at TSC groomed them, mentored them and liked them. Minister, you are dead right when you talk about normalising the environment so these people get to talk about interesting and motivational things.
I have a story to share with you, member for Fong Lim. There was a big fellow, a giant, working hard; I was watching them sweating. Lunchtime came and they all walked off. I started freaking out because I thought, ‘What is going on, the boys are leaving?’ ‘No’ said the prison officer, ‘It is okay, minister, relax, they are just going to get lunch’, because the company provided lunch. Around the corner came the big fellow with two big buckets of wedges, several spring rolls, some dim sims and I said, ‘Hey, excuse me sir, that is not a very healthy lunch for a construction worker’. He looked at me in fear and said, ‘Please, sir, no, let me eat it. They only give us sandwiches back at Berrimah’.
That was normalising. That guy worked on the project and was the first person to get a full-time job with TCS. They were taking him back to Townsville to work on the extension to the casino. The gentleman I met that day begged me to let him eat fast food because all he was fed at Berrimah was sandwiches.
Minister, the classification system will be another challenge. I looked at that closely and I am sure you have seen it in motion. The manual is one thing, but the work in progress is another. You have the intellect to understand this. You have prisoners with English as a second language, with low education levels, from low socioeconomic status, prisoners with disadvantage and disabilities.
One innovation during my time with Corrections was amplification for hearing. They were interviewing prisoners with the team and talking about classification. They realised there could be a problem with hearing. If you understand Indigenous health and hearing you will know what I mean. Adults were not hearing properly, not providing the right responses, and it was difficult to participate in the reclassification exercise.
I was a bit of a bully and pushed Corrections. I had to back off, but I had been working with delinquents in the field for about five years before working with Corrections. I was pushing much of the stuff I was able to do on my own back home. The big system won out in the end, but we levelled out together and achieved much. I really enjoyed my time. Relish your opportunity. I wish you the best of luck.
With the classification system, I overstepped the mark on one visit because I had more questions than the psychologists, the classification officers, and the prison officers about engaging the prisoner in a level I understood. I overstepped it in the formal exercise. I pulled back because I knew I was out of order. I re-engaged that prisoner in the yard and saw much more of him than came through in the classification exercise. I said to him, ‘You have to start communicating with these people because they want to help you and are the key to you moving through the system where you will progress and fast-track people into the program you have outlined in the statement’.
The Northern Territory Prison Officers Association is going to be critical of this because it is red hot on classification, for good reason. Understanding police and justice, you will be able to work with them. They will come on board and allow some movement in that very rigid system ...
Mr Elferink: They are already starting to signal this.
Mr McCARTHY: That is great to hear. That will be an important area to get people moving through so they get into a space where they are not a threat to anybody, have proven their worth, and have signed the contract to say they want to move on and do what the member for Fong Lim is talking about.
Work parties are great and I congratulate you on extending them. Once again, having worked with delinquents in railway sidings yards, gravel pits, on locos, in rodeo grounds and showgrounds, it was always a challenge. I hope I did not upset Corrections, but I articulated several times there was always a challenge with the gang - the bloke on the shovel and the four watching him. It always got me with the boys so I would drive them really hard to ensure I had four shovels, or two shovels and the other two had something else to do. On the work party, you always had a couple of guys doing intense work and others watching.
The classification system prevented me from moving the guys standing around watching into other employment because I did not have the supervision or they did not have the yellow T-shirt which meant they could go out on their own.
One project really maximised the hit and we were proud of it. When you drive along Tiger Brennan Drive I want you to notice two things. One, the landscaping is a ‘dry land’ project which means there is basic preparation of the verges, banks and road reserves and native species are encouraged to return. When the native species returned they were being choked out by weeds. There was no way a commercial operator could have scoped that work without it costing the government a small fortune because it was almost individual work to cut weeds and create mulch around the emerging native species. Corrections got the job.
On the Tiger Brennan Drive project everybody was at work - all hands on deck. It was not just about cutting weeds, it was about real work in a real work environment. There was traffic management, maintenance of machinery, daily schedules and rosters and the challenges around human resource management and work relations. It delivered every aspect of a real job. When I drive along Tiger Brennan Drive in and out of this beautiful city and see the emerging canopy of native species, I remember it was done by prisoners from Berrimah under the guidance and mentoring of the work party team. I will not mention any individual prison officer, but there were several crackers I learnt much from - great guys - and one special person drove that and challenged me regularly for resources in return for the great work done. It was a good example of working in real industry.
The transport and logistics industries at East Arm logistics precinct also offered many opportunities. That was around storehouses, heavy vehicles and transport, supply chains, and transport logistics. There were some golden opportunities there and they were very interested in what we were doing.
I received a copy of the letter from Toll, which the member for Nhulunbuy mentioned, relating to a powerful lobby coming your way, minister. In relation to their Second Step supported employment programs, Toll Group offers exactly what you want. They are the ones to do business with because they will open up many other opportunities. There is a wealth of opportunities at East Arm.
I have one conspiracy. In Question Time today the two graduates you mentioned - one has graduated, one is about to - were on the Second Step program and that is wonderful. It is great to think about what you were saying and realise, ‘Hang on, I remember that project’. It has obviously grown wings. Congratulations, minister, because that industry sector has a real employment need and I am glad you are onto it.
Madam Speaker, the statement is good and helps the most disadvantaged people in our community.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement. The philosophy of making prisoners work as part of their rehabilitation is one I have supported for many years. There are many jobs on the list of councils and community organisations not being done. Some have never been budgeted for, and this scheme offers real benefits to the community without taking work away from full-time workers.
The reason I wanted to speak about this tonight is because Adelaide River is currently looking at a work program for prisoners. I would like to look at this from a community point of view as opposed to the prisoner side. Coomalie Council Shire President, Andrew Turner, addressed a meeting in Adelaide River on 7 February. Some of the advantages of this program for a community he mentioned were grants. Sources of incomes for councils were drying up so many of the jobs that drop off the end of the work list each year are ones prisoners could pick up.
Trevor Horman spends much time looking after the railway museum at Adelaide River. He has been using prisoners on a daily basis to do much of the work. He says it has enabled many restorations to proceed because the prisoners are cleaning up the railway and so forth.
Another thing coming from the meeting was the City of Darwin has been using labour from the prison for a number of years and estimates it saves ratepayers about $1m a year in work being done. They are some of the things raised by Andrew Turner.
The Commissioner for Corrections, Ken Middlebrook, said it was not the intention to set up a prison farm in Adelaide River; it was to be a temporary camp to undertake specific tasks. He also pointed out that Correctional Services already has between 15 and 30 prisoners going out unaccompanied on a daily basis. The minister also mentioned this. The people selected have to go through an intensive classification period. There are no second chances so if they play up they are sent back.
Something else pointed out at the meeting was one of the big pluses for prisoners in work camps, apart from learning skills, is developing a work ethic, feeling they are part of the community and having a sense of achievement. The only interaction with the community in Adelaide River would be in the work camp itself.
The camp is planned to run from Monday to Friday and would be there for about three months. Some of the work Coomalie CEO Lee Farrell suggested was that Adelaide River oval needed levelling and the sprinklers upgrading. They want to clean up Adelaide River town sites and entrances prior to the Bombing of Darwin and Anzac Day events. For those who do not know, this is the 70th anniversary of the last bombs dropped on Australian soil: 13 November at Adelaide River so put that in your diary.
They also want playground equipment erected, recycling of cans and bottles, and picking up recycled materials. Adelaide River has a landfill tip on the outskirts of town.
There is also work at Adelaide River showground and racetrack, mowing council areas not under contract, working on museum projects at Adelaide River and Batchelor, tree lopping and cutting off roots in ovals and parks, erection of white posts, cleaning of culverts on rural roads, cleaning of town streets and stumps, mowing of pensioners’ lawns, cleaning up vacant blocks, cleaning up around rubbish tip sites, assisting in the development of council waste sites, Keep Australia Beautiful Council town cleanup, painting and repairing the old railway bridges in Adelaide River and any other projects they can find in the three months. They saw it as a big bonus.
Some people had concerns but not in regard to the benefit of the workers being there. Their initial concerns were the workers being placed in the town. Subsequently, a second meeting was held last Tuesday night which I also attended. There were probably 20 people at that meeting. The first meeting had 40 to 50 people from Adelaide River. Adelaide River township has a population of around 200 so about one-quarter of the people attended the meeting. The meeting on Tuesday night had about 20 people and everyone was enthusiastic about this. Two people were concerned about the prisoners being stationed in the middle of the town.
Having heard some of the classification systems, I will talk to the minister then reassure these people I do not see a problem having prisoners living in the town and that the benefits will be astronomical.
Madam Speaker, as the meeting at Adelaide River happened this week, I wanted to add to the minister’s statement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the statement by the Minister for Correctional Services titled Sentenced to a Job. It defines a trial program which is working and will be rolled out in future and be highly successful.
It has been heartening to hear the contributions from everybody in the House tonight. The contributions from the other side of the House have not been debased by the usual vitriol and venom and I am pleased. While listening to the member for Fong Lim talk about our mate the sheriff in Arizona, I formed a mental picture of sheriff Tollner doing the same thing. I can imagine him with a bunch of prisoners in pink overalls working on the side of the road. Anyway, I digress.
Listening to what has been said tonight, I find myself harking back to the days when I was a member of the police force. I joined the police in 1986 and had the great privilege, at the end of my training period in 1986, to move to Maranboy. For those who do not now know where that is, 50 km south of Katherine on the Stuart Highway turn left towards Gove and the police station is 19 km in. It was a two-man police station and we looked after Barunga, Beswick, Bulman and some other smaller communities around the southwestern corner of Arnhem Land and, of course, the cattle properties and what not.
I was privileged to work there because I was able to form a great number of friendships with the local Aboriginal people. I came to know them and, as best as I could, understand them and their culture. Importantly, I took a real interest in what was going on in the community. There are still lessons in that for police officers across the Territory about being involved in the community in which they work and serve.
During that time, and ensuing years in the police force, I got to see the very best and very worst side of life. A big part of the worst side was the rate at which Indigenous people were incarcerated, which was disturbing. Even more disturbing were two things: the fact the recidivism rate was extremely high and remains so today, and when people came out of prison they went back to the same life they left when heading to detention centres or prisons. I always thought there must be a better way forward for anyone entering the criminal justice system.
I want to fast forward a number of years to when I was in Alice Springs and the people I met there, many of them Indigenous, who had been in the prison system. I am thinking about a particular fellow who I met in the Todd River one day. I have an interest in Aboriginal art and came across this fellow with his family. He had a couple of most stunning paintings for sale so I had a yarn with him. They were not the traditional dot paintings you expect from Central Australia, but more contemporary art. One of the paintings I bought, which I am currently having framed - a job I have neglected for a number of years – is called Two Old Men, the Moon and the Stars. It is a painting of two old Aboriginal men with grey flowing beards looking up at the stars. It is a remarkable piece of artwork. When it is completed I will hang it in my office upstairs.
The point I want to make goes to what is written on the back of that painting. Some in this House will know every prisoner who enters the criminal justice system in the Northern Territory is assigned an IJIS number - Integrated Justice Information System. These two beautiful art pieces were signed on the back by this fellow. I will not name him in this House; he has not given me authority to. Underneath his name he also wrote his IJIS number. It was a poignant moment when I saw that and realised what it was. That told me this fellow, probably in his mid- to late-20s, was so firmly entrenched in the criminal justice system he identified not only by his name, but also by his IJIS number. I find it, even today, very moving that a person becomes so firmly a part of the prison system that they use their IJIS number to identify themselves. I have never forgotten that.
I think about all the people I have dealt with, putting them into the criminal justice system, doing my job as a policemen, and the hopelessness of so many people where incarceration becomes part of the culture. That is really sad. Years ago I was told the people of Groote Eylandt were not accepted as initiated until they had been to prison. How sad is that? Going into the ‘big house’ was a rite of passage. That, in itself, is bad enough, but for them to come out and have no hope, basically dumped on the street - I have seen that happen many times.
In more recent times in Katherine, I remember standing at the Post Office one afternoon talking to local people; the Post Office in Katherine is a great place to catch up with people. I saw an Indigenous fellow run across the road from the direction of the Katherine Hotel chasing another fellow. He chased him through cars waiting at the traffic lights and parked cars in front of the Post Office.
I ended up calling the police because this guy was obviously very intoxicated and I was fearful for the safety of the other chap. While police were on the way, this fellow calmed down. The other one took off; he was okay. I kept an eye on this fellow for the police in case he tried to do a runner. The police arrived and he was spoken to and taken into custody. Police said he was worried and upset because he had just come out of prison that day. He arrived in Katherine, was highly intoxicated, and was chasing the other bloke because he thought he had slept with his wife.
Even in contemporary times - that was less than 12 months ago - the system allows people to be dumped on the street with nothing and go back to the life they had before. Is it any wonder recidivism rates in the Northern Territory are so high?
It is heartening to read the minister’s statement because it puts into words what is happening in the prison system in the Northern Territory now. It has to be a better way.
Before being re-elected in August last year I spent time as shadow minister for Corrections. I had the opportunity to visit the Darwin Correctional Centre, Alice Springs gaol and the Barkly Work Camp. Credit where credit is due - I like to do that as people know - the Barkly Work Camp is a pretty impressive place set up under the former government. The main street and the median strip in Tennant Creek looked fine. This was largely as a result of the work being done by prisoners from the Barkly Work Camp: a good thing.
I toured Berrimah and Alice Springs and was escorted around and made aware of what was going on. I was told some work programs were happening inside the prison in metal work etcetera. One prisoner sentenced for murder not so long ago was building trailers. That was a good thing too.
However, I noticed an inordinate number of prisoners in both institutions were idle. As we walked around I was briefed about a work program, nonetheless, it struck me it was not enough. It was not a serious attempt to address the chronic problem in our society of recidivism and finding an opportunity for prisoners, when they leave prison, to enter into a better life. By ‘a better life’, I mean a job.
The member for Fong Lim is right; the best form of welfare, the best form of rehabilitation, is a job. It gives you pride, self-esteem and something to get up for every morning. Lord knows, people who do not have a job and drink all day do not have much to get up for.
Thinking about how that program was rolling out previously, I was a little disheartened. I am not criticising the people working in the prisons because that is as a result of government policy settings; the priority placed around those programs by government and the level of resources allocated to it.
As I read through the minister’s statement I note the enthusiasm with which he approached not only the statement - he wrote this himself because it is in ‘elf speak’. The minister’s enthusiasm is infectious. He has a way of encouraging people in the Corrections system - both staff and, through them, the prisoners - to get involved in these worthwhile activities so people have hope of a better life after leaving prison.
In thinking about how this might affect my electorate, I look forward to seeing prison work gangs in Katherine. It has been done in the past and the pensioners who have their lawns mown in Darwin - for every one there is one in Katherine who would love to have their lawn mown…
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection saying ‘we are getting there’. I would appreciate that. Beyond that, many other things can be done.
One of the great things about my part of the world is our beautiful Nitmiluk National Park and the gorge associated with it. It is traditional land of the Jawoyn people and a national park in the Northern Territory’s care. Resources in departments often restrict our ability to improve infrastructure and build the capacity for more people to use the park. Prisoners in groups could come into Nitmiluk National Park and camp for a week. What a wonderful thing for Aboriginal people to be in the bush, camp, and work at the same time. I can see them working on the pathways adorning the national park and, at the same time, do a good day’s work. At lunchtime they could go for a swim in the river then continue working through the afternoon, collect some bush tucker - there is plenty of it in the national park - have another swim and sleep under the stars at night. What a way to bring Aboriginal people back to the bush and the bush back to Aboriginal people! There is a very strong relationship between Aboriginal people and the land, including the bush, and it would be great to have that opportunity available to prisoners, particularly if they hail from my part of the country.
This visionary statement is a representation of what the minister is currently doing. It is about breaking the cycle of offending, recidivism and giving prisoners a reason for being. We all need a reason for being. If this program continues with the success it has enjoyed thus far and is rolled out further, it is going to be a watershed for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and the entire prison system.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement from the minister and am pleased he has informed the House, and the people of the Northern Territory, about the wonderful things he is doing. I wish not only the minister luck and success with this, but also the people involved. As I have said to people in my department, this is not about me as minister, minister Elferink, the department, the gaol, or about the buildings; it is about the people of the Northern Territory. If this program makes a difference for so many Aboriginal people I welcome it as a great thing.
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine for overstating it as visionary. It is not visionary; it is intuitively self-evident. People are saying you have to explore this in other ways, there are options to be explored etcetera Yes, that is all true, but the member for Fong Lim was right on the money. The best form of welfare is a bloke with a job. I wish I had put that in the ministerial statement.
I understand the enthusiasm of the former minister and, as I acknowledged in my statement, the Labor Party had started doing this. The only thing I can say – this is not a criticism of the member for Nhulunbuy, she obviously cares about the families and all the other things involved and too right. However, as Minister for Correctional Services I cannot fix people’s families, government cannot fix people’s families, and government cannot fix people.
Comment was made by the member for Nhulunbuy about me being hands on and that is true. Perhaps I am a little hyperactive in the way I do this job, but I care about the people of the Northern Territory and see this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a difference. The reason I entered politics was to make a difference. The reason I become involved in this was to make a difference, the opportunity has presented itself and that is what I would like to do. This is not a complex program and people seem genuinely surprised when I said I picked up the phone and started ringing employers. That is precisely what I did.
By the way, while sitting in the mall speaking to people I got some more, and I got two at Parap markets a few weeks ago. I grabbed their business cards and went to my ministerial officer, Jo Sangster, who works her behind off on this stuff, ‘There’s another one, go ring, go organise it’, which is why we went from 18 to 30; I got 12 very quickly in a month. The thing that has knocked my socks off - I am not surprised the prisoners are engaging with it because it beats the boredom of sitting in gaol and you get money in your pocket - is the enthusiasm with which business is embracing this. I expected to be receiving pushback in this area and have not found it at all. I have had several people say, ‘I would like to but it is not right for my work’.
I was explaining this to a firm that had no labouring jobs and the owner said they had a job for a person and understood that person to be serving time. I made a quick phone call, ‘What was that person’s classification?’ ‘They are on our list, they qualify’. A couple of days later it was organised. It does not have to be more complex than that. The cost of this to the taxpayer is zero.
I am unsure if the member for Nhulunbuy is being negative, but she noted we are charging board because we expect people to make a contribution. That is what the world is about. You make a contribution with your labour and you get money in. You consume, you push money out. That is how it works. As a result of that you get some dignity. It scares me how simple it is. I do not need a bureaucracy to organise it. I make a few phone calls and people seem genuinely surprised a minister from the Crown would get involved in one of his own policies. I do not believe ministers necessarily should be remote.
I tend to immerse myself in my ministries in a way which is surprising to people, but that is who I am and I will not make any apologies for that. I have the responsibility of first law officer of the Northern Territory, a responsibility thrust upon my shoulders to ensure the administration of justice in the Territory is running well, and I do not understand why people are genuinely surprised that I would ensure I know how the administration of justice works.
I spoke to the Solicitor-General about the McNamara case ruled on by Justice Barr in the Supreme Court, an issue for the administration of justice in the Northern Territory. I suspect I am the best informed Attorney-General in the area of apprehended bias in the history of the Northern Territory because, in the process of becoming involved in that matter, I read all the required authorities, cases, and associated material. Whilst I was, on paper, the senior law officer in the court, I was not going to pretend the QC sitting to my left was junior to me in any real or practical way. I advised Their Honours submissions were being made by my solicitor, the Solicitor-General, and were, accordingly, made. I got my head around all the issues in relation to that case. That makes me a better minister.
I told the legal fraternity I would be engaged and involved as Attorney-General and have done so. There is nothing unusual in this. Robert McClelland has done it and John Rau, the Labor Attorney-General in South Australia, is going to the Supreme Court this month. He has been to the High Court, as McClelland has. Many Attorneys-General have done this. It has raised a few eyebrows, but whether people like it or not I have undertaken all the requisite studies, passed all the required exams, done all that is necessary in the postgraduate environment to meet the expectations of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, and have been admitted to practice in that court. I could walk into that court as a practitioner if I so chose because I have all the requisite qualifications. I had it put to me by a journalist recently that I did not have all the requisite qualifications because people thought I only had a law degree. No, I have the GDLP as well and have been admitted to practice at the Bar of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.
I am not ashamed of what I do; it is just the style. People are surprised I ring businesses but in the space of a few weeks I had 18 jobs. In the space of a few more weeks it was up to 30. I am proud of that. However, I really enjoy what is going to come for those people. I do not want it to be complex. You get bureaucrats saying, ‘We have to look after the families, we have to do this and we have to make it a training program’. No, not in the first instance, just get them a job. These jobs start at work illiterate people can do. There are people working now who are functionally illiterate but are doing it anyway because we got them a job and there is an employer prepared to give them a break. Cost to the taxpayer - zip.
The employer pays full award wages, insurance - everything. These people are employees on a casual basis, and that is the exciting part. This is done with a handful of phone calls, a willing set of prison officers prepared to assist with the administration of this program, and we are seeing results from making a handful of phone calls - no expensive programs, no grant money, no plans of voluminous works. Everything is structured simply to get these guys a job and is not too complex. I love keeping it simple because it makes it so easy to do.
I am now, with the same level of hyperactivity, trying to expand the program to prisoners who successful qualify through the classification system. Some people will never get this far, others have a wonderful opportunity and I would like to give it to them. The opportunity to keep it simple should not be missed. We can continue rolling out these jobs.
One area I am particularly excited about is an employer – Foxy - I will name him because he does not mind, we have spoken about this. Foxy Robinson has started working with a new, unique product. Foxy is branching into another area. I will not talk too much about it because it is his intellectual property, but it is a good idea. I have seen the product and it will require labour to build it; it will require an industry. I have already spoken to the Commissioner for Corrections, Ken Middlebrook, and we are planning to roll it out. We are going to build - this is in reply to the member for Nelson - a new industry producing an entirely new product - not competing with anybody else - inside Berrimah prison. Guess what? It is likely those prisoners employed in the project will be paid award wages. If not, we will have to negotiate our way around it, but it is probably going to work that way.
I had one business ring me not long ago saying, ‘The steel rolling mill, you guys are using convict labour and competing directly with us’. ‘Would you like to employ a prisoner?’ Answer, ‘We use roughly the same equipment. Yes, if you have a trained person to do it’. All of a sudden another person has a job. I am not sure if that one worked, but it is very encouraging.
I have advised the department not to tell me the nonsense stuff. Do not tell me how many are Aboriginal, how many are women, how many are this, that or the other. This is about the people. They get the right classification and go out to do the job. I do not care if they are Aboriginal or not, illiterate or not, if they are girls or boys. I am not interested. The reason I know about some of them is I arranged jobs for them, but I am not interested in the peripheral nonsense. This is a very traditional way of welfare - prisoners have a job.
If people leave prison and want to return to their home communities that is their choice; you cannot stop a free person being free. I am quietly optimistic many people will remain in our towns and communities with their job and travel to communities to visit their families from time to time. If it works out that way that is good, not because I want to see people separated from their communities, but I want to see people keep their jobs. If enough people travel from communities into larger towns and back and forward, and if we can get enough people in remote communities with this attitude to work, over time something wonderful can be achieved.
I legitimately do not know what the future of this program is or how big it is going to get. It is as big as the number of prisoners who qualify through the appropriate classification system and the number of jobs available. If we can keep matching them we will keep advancing this program with a view to making people’s lives better. There are few ministers in the world - no ministers in this government - who have the opportunity granted to me because I have a captive audience to work with. This means the government, and Commissioner Middlebrook as head of Correctional Services, has a capacity to direct and guide which you cannot do in any other ministerial portfolio. Fortunately, we have a capacity to respond to an opportunity which has made itself available.
Madam Speaker, I do not care how much criticism I receive, I will continue making phone calls and giving a rat’s ass about what we can achieve as a government in this Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, tonight I wish to address an issue that was raised by the member for Barkly on Tuesday evening during his adjournment debate, and mentioned again in some debate yesterday. It is in relation to the provision of power tokens to a power token retailer who lived outside of Tennant Creek. The inquiry was in relation to where that power card retailer could source power cards in Tennant Creek given that the remaining PWC agency in Tennant Creek has been closed, at least for the time being.
I offer the member for Barkly an apology for not having responded to his e-mail sooner; I take full responsibility for that as the minister. The e-mail came into my office and clearly it should have been attended to. I take responsibility for that.
In answer to the question by the member for Barkly, I can advise the following arrangements have been made for the supply of tokens to the token agents in Tennant Creek, and, by extension, to those who come into Tennant Creek to pick them up. First, facsimile and e-mail orders have been diverted to Darwin and are cleared several times a day. Orders are made up and despatched as soon as practicable in accordance with the token agent contract. This is usually on the day of receipt; however, workload may lead to this being the next day. Token orders are despatched from Darwin by Australia Post via Express Post, deliveries usually take approximately three days to Tennant Creek, and agents have been requested to factor this in when making their orders.
Token orders are currently being tracked by Australia Post to monitors delivery times. It also monitors the size and frequency of token orders to minimise the risk of agents running out of tokens. For the member for Barkly’s information, your retailer, who I gather from your e-mail lives outside of Tennant Creek, can go through the same process and probably pick them up from the Tennant Creek Post Office but, should that not be suitable, perhaps he can take the opportunity to contact Power and Water to make alternative arrangements.
There is just one other matter I want to touch on in respect to this, and that is the way in which the member for Barkly broached this issue on Tuesday night. He was fair enough to read the e-mails he sent to my office, but what was quite beyond the pale, and certainly not a practice that is adopted by this House, was to name people who work in ministerial offices. The member for Barkly on Tuesday read out an e-mail he wrote, read a response that was provided to him which was basically acknowledging his e-mail, and then read into that the name of one of my staff members on the fifth floor.
We all know it is not kosher to name people in this House where they do not have an opportunity to respond. The member for Barkly owes the young lady who was named on that night an apology. When she was told about this the following morning she was distraught to think her name had been placed on the permanent Parliamentary Record in the Northern Territory simply because the member for Barkly thought he could do some political point scoring, or do something like that …
Mr McCarthy: Do not try your cheap politics, Willem.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Beg your pardon?
Mr McCarthy: It was a positive, read Hansard.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Was it?
Mr McCarthy: Yes, read it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Read what?
Mr McCarthy: The ‘thank you’ I said because I got a response; but nothing from you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on your interjection. I do not know why you had to name a staff member in my office. If you want to take me on, member for Barkly, you take me on all you like. Leave my staff members out of it.
I would never dream, nor would most people in this House, of naming staff members who work in your office. I take responsibility for what goes on in my office and I do not expect from you, or anybody else, to take on my staff members and name them in this House. You should be ashamed of yourself …
Mr McCarthy: Do not try that rubbish on.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: What a despicable man you are. How pathetic you are. To pick on …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I will try to go through the Chair; otherwise I am going to get really angry because the arrogant attitude being displayed by the member for Barkly is typical of what I expected. He said during his contribution to the debate on the ministerial statement tonight that he was ‘a bit of a bully’ in respect to his Corrections people when dealing with issues in the Barkly Work Camp. Well, really? So, you are a bully? There is self-admission the member for Barkly is a bully. What he has tried to do is bully my staff. He might have been able to get away with that with his Corrections staff and with his own staff on the fifth floor, who knows, but he will not get away with it with my staff. I expect an apology for naming my staff member in this House on Tuesday night and causing her so much upset and grief the following day. You are a despicable man.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept the challenge from the member for Katherine, and apologise to the ministerial assistant. I also say to the ministerial assistant, read the Hansard of my reply and the words of your minster, because your minister just tried cheap political point scoring to get it on the Hansard because he did not respond. He was not interested.
He was fishing in Chambers Bay, he was in Texas at a conference, but he did not respond to the closure of the Power and Water office in Tennant Creek.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have all comments directed through the Chair, please.
Mr McCARTHY: There is my apology.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I mention a noteworthy celebration in Tennant Creek which was the opening of the new police station on the main street by the Deputy Chief Minister, Hon Robyn Lambley. Minister Lambley read a speech on behalf of the Chief Minister, who sent his apology, briefly outlining the history of the NT Police in Tennant Creek and the benefits of this public infrastructure to community safety and staff morale.
As the local member, I was delighted to see the new police station open; however, I lamented the opportunity for addressing our local police and their guests as the minister’s speech was hollow and misleading considering it was my lobbying, as the MLA, and the previous Labor government’s commitment to Tennant Creek, which secured the important capital works. I would have outlined a suite of new capital works projects representing government investment in community safety and rehabilitation with the Barkly Work Camp, the new sobering-up shelter, the increased investment in alcohol rehabilitation beds, and the new police station, all delivered in the past four years.
The minister missed the opportunity of highlighting Tennant Creek and the Barkly pioneering new strategies for addressing offending behaviour and Correctional Services; however, he managed to claim the Tennant Creek Hospital emergency department capital works and the 16-bed prisoner work placement project at the Ali Curung watermelon farm, which were all Labor government initiatives.
The ABC journalist covering the new police station story was keen to hear my background information acknowledging the previous Labor government’s achievements, yet flippantly decided that claiming all the glory was the prerogative of a new government.
I also comment on some news reports and media releases where the new government is celebrating new infrastructure in the Territory. I commend them on that because they are acknowledging that the stimulus strategy which saved the Territory from the grips of the global financial crisis, saved jobs, delivered social infrastructure and set the Territory up for what we are seeing now as one of the fastest growing areas in the nation.
The Minister for Transport and for Infrastructure has been out in the field. That is great. The media release from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure on 14 January 2013 talked about the Dundee access being improved and how the local residents, the fishos, and holidaymakers enjoyed that improved access to Dundee Beach following the construction of the Annie Creek Bridge. It went on to talk about more roads infrastructure, better flood immunity, and considerably upgrading the infrastructure in that important area. It is great to see a CLP minister cutting ribbons and acknowledging the forethought, planning, and the delivery of a Labor government.
The minister also took the opportunity to open the Port Keats Road improvements and the new bridge, and there was great media around that from the National Indigenous Times on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 and the Koori Mail on Wednesday, 16 January 2013. Good on the minister because he talked about not only the stimulus strategy of infrastructure to the bush, but also about the jobs. That was a really strong message to send through these reputable newspapers, that are circulated nationally, about that connection between not only delivering social and public infrastructure in the bush, but also the attachment to jobs and training and the opportunities for local people. It is really good to see the new government celebrating one of Labor’s very powerful, successful policies: the fiscal stimulus strategy which was matched with a defined step-out strategy.
As the previous Treasurer continues to inform this House, the CLP is really misleading the Territory and creating its own discourse around what was, and is, a manageable debt in one of the fastest growing areas in the country.
Two other projects I hope to see the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure at soon are the 20 km of major upgrade on the Barkly Highway on the Queensland border and that very integral part of road transport infrastructure at the Gilbert Swamp. Those two projects have been battling Wet Season conditions but, fortunately enough, the new Minister for Transport and Infrastructure has had the opportunity of a dry Wet Season. These two projects have been able to maintain their momentum over the construction period during the Wet; they have had a few setbacks, but it is major roads infrastructure which has created many jobs, and a nice relationship has developed between the community of Mungkarta and the contractor on the Gilbert Swamp. Some good work will be done around the community and I hope that translates to further professional relationships where maybe some of those community members might get a job out of it.
Once again, I look forward to that and to more of those projects commenced under the previous government coming to fruition, being acknowledged by the CLP government, and being opened by the Country Liberal Party ministers.
In Tennant Creek, the February/March Budget Cabinet of the new CLP government will lock down. They are going to create the new Territory budget, and I hope to see their election commitments for lowering the cost of living and delivering more capital works programs into regional and remote areas. For instance, a family crisis centre, a youth centre, and youth accommodation facility were Country Liberal Party promises for Tennant Creek, with a government business centre, retail centre, and major upgrade of the Savannah Way for Borroloola. These projects represent good government investment in supporting public infrastructure while growing the economy and creating jobs, like Labor’s policy and delivery.
Let us see some more CLP investment in the Barkly. No more speaking with forked tongue. There are many other regional and remote electorates which will benefit from a continuation of these projects that have the opportunity of involving local communities and delivering jobs. The Minister for Correctional Services talked about offering the most disadvantaged in our community a real future, buddying up with real industry, becoming part of the future of the Territory, the prosperity of the Territory, and developing what the minister has highlighted in this House: the ability to stand up straight and tell a story to your family and understand what has taken place; that is, you have developed self-esteem and you are on the right track. You are not continually back through that revolving door of Correctional Services and the grief that goes with it, not only as an individual, but for all your family and your friends. That sadness exists when you are missing in action as opposed to being with family on country being able to celebrate your story.
In regard to what the member for Fong Lim said about having to leave home, I continually say it in this House, and I continually say it to the young people in the Barkly, ‘No, you do not’, because the new cycle of mining, construction, transport and infrastructure is the block shifts. It is 10 days on and five days off; it is 14 days on and seven days off. You can still live in paradise; you can be cashed up and have the resources to enjoy it with your family, have a healthy lifestyle for your kids, and work at the same time.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016