2015-03-25
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from two Year 7 classes from Rosebery Middle School accompanied by Gillian Furniss and Sally Cotton. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have placed on each member’s desk a ribbon to highlight motor neurone disease. In Australia one person dies each day from motor neurone disease and another is diagnosed. Thank you for your support.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that a select committee on the prevalence, impacts and government responses to illicit use of the drug colloquially known as ‘ice’ in the Northern Territory is appointed.
The committee will investigate and report on:
(a) the reliability of government data on ice use and measures to enhance the collection of data to ensure that the scale of the problem and its impacts on the health, justice, drug and alcohol, and law enforcement efforts of the Northern Territory government are understood and measured as accurately as possible
(b) a comprehensive survey of the various government responses to the abuse of ice in the Northern Territory and assess their effectiveness or otherwise
(a) consult widely with Territorians and those organisations and professionals with experience in ice use
(b) consider best practice models for effective early education, prevention, containment, treatment and withdrawal strategies
The committee may elect a Deputy Chair of the committee, who may act as the Chair when the Chair is absent from a meeting or there is no Chair of the committee.
A quorum of the committee shall be two members of the committee.
The committee is to report by 17 September 2015.
The provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
There is a growing threat to our community from the synthetic drug commonly known as ice. I gave notice yesterday of my intent to move that a select committee be appointed to investigate the prevalence, impacts and government responses to the illicit use of the drug colloquially known as ice in the Northern Territory. I outlined the terms of reference yesterday.
Ice is a methylamphetamine and part of the amphetamine group of drugs. Ice is a most pure form of that family. Ice is known by a variety of names including crystal meth, meth, crystal, shabu, batu, demeth, tina and glass. Studies have shown that the use of ice is associated with brain and mental health conditions including ruptured blood vessels in the brain, memory loss, indecision, depression and psychosis. These drugs can cause paranoia and hallucinations, and the user may also become aggressive and violent requiring sedation and physical restraint or police intervention.
Using ice also leads to social and financial problems and the risk of family breakdown. Violent crimes and deaths related to the use and supply of ice in the Northern Territory appear to be on the increase and it is of great community concern.
The volume of amphetamines, including ice intercepted by police, is almost double that of the previous financial year. In the past 12 months to February 2015, 17 drug labs have been detected by the Northern Territory police. The 2014-15 figures to date are indicating a further increase in these figures. We know that offences involving drug trafficking, supply and manufacture often involve other offences.
Violent offending, including the use of weapons, is commonplace among chronic methylamphetamine users and organised crime activity includes violence, extortion and firearm offences. There is a common link.
An Australian Crime Commission report released this morning shows that the price paid for methylamphetamines, including ice in particular, in Australia is among the highest in the world. This makes the importation of the drug and its precursor chemicals an attractive target for transnational crime groups.
The Australian Crime Commission Chief Executive Officer, Chris Dawson, described ice as a devastating, insidious drug. It affects everyone from users, their families, their communities and the authorities who deal with these users. He said the increasing availability of ice has created new demand in areas where the drug has not been found in the past, including regional, rural and disadvantaged communities.
It is our great fear that not only will it spread from urban locations in the Territory, but also to remote locations where it is even harder to manage. That is why intensive targeting of drug manufacturers remains a high priority for the Northern Territory government and police in particular.
Aboriginal communities remain a destination of choice for many drug traffickers. We see what happens with alcohol and kava. It is our great fear and concern that this will also happen with ice. It is a sad fact that these communities sometimes create high demand for substances which deliver significant profit margins for those who wish to peddle drugs. Drug traffickers and organised crime groups continue to target the Northern Territory market to meet the high demand for illicit substances by young, cash-rich labourers and tradesmen.
The abuse of ice is a national issue but local responses are required to meet the growing demand. This is required through all jurisdictions working together. A key priority is to effectively educate people about the dangers of the drug known as ice before these people become users. The addiction rates with this substance appear higher than with similar substances.
The Northern Territory Police Force continues to disrupt the illegal drug supply trade with a dedicated Drug and Organised Crime Division, regionalised drug desk and intelligence operatives.
Drug traffickers may be operating independently or as part of a wider organised crime network which includes activities in other jurisdictions.
The Giles government promised to be tough on crime and we are delivering across many fronts in domestic violence, assaults, property crime and so forth.
This select committee is designed to investigate the prevalence, impacts and government responses to the use of ice in the Northern Territory and report back to government by 17 September. We must first get a clear picture of how big the ice problem is in the Northern Territory. There have been a few busts of manufacturing operations, but we know the devastating impacts in our community. We must investigate the effectiveness of our current responses to the ice trade and develop new ways to fight the problem.
The police force does a fantastic job in fighting drugs in our community. This government and the committee will support police efforts by identifying the evidence of the prevalence and solutions driving forward to deal with this issue. The abuse of ice is a national issue and we must develop these effective local responses to target the problem.
There is reason to believe that ice is fast becoming a serious menace in our community. It poses a direct threat to law and order. For example, there is a direct correlation between drugs and property crime. We must ensure that ice stops killing our kids and other Territorians. It is time for us to do something about it. We have heard the cries from the community through listening to some sad stories from mums, wives and others about people in their families who have become ice users, abusers and addicts. The stories are very painful.
This is part of the reason we are moving to form this select committee, so we can investigate it further. We have engaged in pretty good conversation on our side of the Chamber about ice. There is a range of thoughts, concerns and ideas about how to progress on that. The Minister for Health and other members of parliament will give their views on how bad the problem is and some possible solutions.
Some think the solution lies in the health framework and others think it lies within the criminal justice framework in our community. I think these are important discussions we should have openly and publicly, but also within the select committee.
I thank the member for Blain for taking on the responsibility of chairing that select committee. He has raised concerns many times with me and the parliamentary wing regarding the prevalence of ice in Palmerston and the devastating effects it has had.
The time frame of between now and 17 September is adequate for us to research enough to report back to parliament. If the committee can work faster it will be good. If they need more time, we will consider it. We want to get a very good evidence base about what is occurring both here and in other jurisdictions, regional and otherwise, to then be able to identify what some of those solutions are and whether the best solutions are from health, the criminal justice system or a combination of different approaches.
Fundamentally, we want to ensure we recognise the issue of ice and what it does to the kids and their family unit. We have to find ways we can prevent the prevalence of ice, but also deal with it when it occurs, recognising the huge negative social impact it has on the Northern Territory.
There have been many challenges in the Northern Territory in the past through many different governments. I see ice presenting one of those significant challenges now. If we work together collectively as mature, responsible politicians and have a very well-informed community and parliamentary committee debate, we will be able to find some positive ways to meet the needs of the community.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House. I will be very interested to hear the contribution of other parliamentary members throughout this motion. I look forward to seeing the outcomes of the select committee when its report is presented later this year.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition welcomes the establishment of a select committee to investigate the prevalence, impacts and government responses to ice in the Northern Territory.
It was some time ago now that we called for an immediate response to the scourge of ice – in fact an epidemic – across the Northern Territory, so we welcome the fact that the government has listened and responded, albeit chosen a different path to what we recommended. We had recommended the establishment of an interagency task force of Health, Police and Children and Families to undertake a six-week urgent review and recommend actions to respond to the ice epidemic.
Opposition does not think it is one or the other. We believe the select committee could and should proceed, but we also urge the government to establish that interagency task force. It would be a coordinated response which would provide the opportunity for any early actions to occur while the the select committee takes its journey through the Territory engaging and consulting with experts and the community. I urge government to consider that it is not an either/or.
This is a genuine call for urgent action to tackle the scourge of ice. We will be debating in General Business Day later the opposition motion to establish an interagency task force. This motion is to immediately establish an ice room at Royal Darwin Hospital. I urge the government to give favourable consideration to that because I believe it would work in concert and tandem with the good work this committee will undertake in understanding a range of responses to the ice epidemic.
Somewhat unusually, the government decided, on behalf of opposition, who the member of opposition on the committee would be. We need to make one minor amendment to the motion. In that amendment, Madam Speaker, I move that the words ‘member for Nhulunbuy’ be omitted and in their place be inserted ‘member for Casuarina’.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, we can indicate our support for that.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: I thank the Leader of Government Business for government support for that minor amendment to this motion.
The call for urgent action on ice that opposition made some time ago now was in response to the very clear message we were hearing from Territorians that families were grappling with a tragic situation where the heavy impact of this insidious drug was literally tearing families apart. I note the Chief Minister mentioned the impact on families. In my local experience it has been the grandmothers who have been left to deal with caring for children of ice addicts, many of whom have ended up in our correctional services institution. At the end of the day this drug is illegal, as it should be, and they have, through their addiction, committed crimes because it is an expensive habit. Fuelled by their addiction they follow the path of crime and, quite appropriately, the police do their job. They are arrested, they are charged and due to the severity of their illegal behaviour they are gaoled. That scenario has been playing out across the Northern Territory and those remedies are appropriate.
However, we do not yet know how to best deal with the broken pieces of that family and the support they need because they are plunged into a crisis. We do not yet know how to deal with the preventative end to get public education awareness and at what level that should drill down to. For example, should it be a drug and awareness program in our middle schools? What appropriate measures can we take as a society to look at the preventative end?
One thing I have said publicly is there should be a single point of entry into the system for anyone who suspects their family member may be in the early stages of addiction to ice for support, help and advice. If you have early intervention you can hopefully avert the most heinous parts of this ice crisis, which are the increasing addiction and exhibition of violent behaviour which leads to violent crime, quite aside from the property crime escalation we are seeing in our community as a result of people trying to get money to feed their habit.
These are some of the things the select committee could get advice from an interagency task force that is hitting the ground running quickly. It could very genuinely embrace that and provide recommendations. I am pleased to see the terms of reference of the select committee covers all of these aspects. I am delighted there is reference to the spectrum from health, justice, drug and alcohol and law enforcement efforts. I am pleased to see that it will look at the social and community impacts of ice in urban, community and remote settings. I am very pleased reference (d) will look at responses in regard to prevention, education, family and individual support and withdrawal and treatment modalities. It recognises there are cross-border trafficking issues, local manufacture and derivation from legal pharmaceuticals and other legal precursors. It then calls for consideration of best practice workplace health and safety measures for those in the health system who come into contact with users of ice.
I urge the government to see this as urgent. Right now people at Royal Darwin Hospital are working in conditions that are unsafe when it comes to managing people in the grips of ice addiction presenting with a violent episode. We have an opportunity right now, with construction work being done at Royal Darwin Hospital, to expand the emergency department area. I have real concerns that we might miss the boat when a specification change to that construction work could accommodate an ice room. It does not need to wait until September. The evidence shows it exists as a tool in other emergency departments and trauma hospitals around Australia.
This is only meant in the best will and good spirit as an opportunity to make a meaningful improvement sooner rather than later to the way ice addicts are dealt with at Royal Darwin Hospital, which is the largest point of intake in the Northern Territory. That is what I have heard directly from medical practitioners not only in the ED, but also in the Cowdy Ward, where these clients are often referred. It does not have the same powers of restraint that the nurses in the ED have. It is a complex, problematic situation and all of the practitioners have urged for an ice room.
The Minister for Health is active and I am confident he could have these conversations to see whether or not modifications could be made to the construction scope of works currently under way at the Royal Darwin Hospital emergency department. You can be a doer ahead of the game. At the end of the day we will need safe places for people in the health system.
I urge bipartisan support to the motion this afternoon, because it is not an either/or issue. There are some things you can do while this select committee is under way. An interagency task force is a normal tool of government to bring departments together to have a shared, collective set of advice. It would be appropriate in regard to establishing the parliamentary select committee, because that interagency task force could drive the work, providing support and advice to the select committee while also identifying what actions can be taken within budget between now and September to improve the responses in the system.
The community has been looking for leadership in tackling this scourge head-on, and other governments have shown you need a coordinated action plan. The community wants government to work with community groups, the broader human services sector and non-government organisations on developing responses and treatment options.
I am delighted the member for Casuarina will represent opposition on this committee. She has knowledge of alcohol and other drugs treatment provision. She also has knowledge of mental health. Her working relationship – as the shadow minister for Mental Health Services, Disability Services and Children and Families – is established with the non-government organisation sector, which is crucial to supporting families and individuals. It is an appropriate appointment to the committee. It is an opportunity from our perspective for the member for Casuarina to gain insight into the work of health and police professionals in responses to practitioner issues. I thank the member for Casuarina for putting her hand up for this very important task.
The community is looking to ensure that service providers are well equipped and knowledgeable in how to deal with ice addiction. Workers on the front line want to know they have the best available information, as well as the right tools and protection in treating people under the influence of ice.
There is some knowledge about the scale of this threat. The 2011 National Drug Strategy report noted that crystal methamphetamine, or ice, first emerged in Australia in the early 1990s. By mid-2000 it had become a key feature of Australia’s illicit drug scene, coinciding with the shortage of heroin and large imports of crystal methamphetamine from Asia. It became attractive to drug users because it could be smoked or injected for rapid effect.
Studies estimate that the use of ice in Australia has increased 10% over the last three years. One study reports that 350 000 Australians smoked, snorted or injected crystal meth over the past 12 months. Crystal meth is also attractive to organised crime given its ease of manufacture and transport and the profits to be made.
In 2012-13 more than two tonnes of amphetamines was intercepted in the Australian mail system alone. Alarmingly about 90% of this drug is now produced locally in illicit drug labs. Northern Territory police estimate about 35% of ice in the Territory is produced locally. More than 10 labs were shut down by NT police last year.
In the most recent public NT Drug Trends report of 2013, key experts stated their concern on the increase in the availability, regular use and injection of crystal meth. They were concerned a market had become more established in the NT. Two-thirds of survey respondents for that NT survey reported crystal meth as ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to obtain.
In June last year the NT News highlighted the growing threat and impact of ice on the NT community. Detective Superintendent Peter Schiller from the Drug and Organised Crime Squad said the ice plague began here in about 2005. I quote him:
He highlighted this disturbing fact:
Unlike heroin, crystal meth does not usually kill the user, but it is others that are seriously harmed by users. Abusers often need to take higher doses so take it more regularly. Chronic abusers may develop difficulty feeling any pleasure other than that provided by the drug. Withdrawal includes depression, anxiety, fatigue and an intense craving for the drug. Chronic abusers exhibit symptoms that include anxiety, confusion, brain disturbances and violent behaviour. They may also display psychotic features including paranoia, visual and auditory hallucinations and delusions. Sadly, the psychotic symptoms sometimes last for months or years after a person has quit abusing. Study of chronic users also reveals severe structural and functional changes in areas of the brain accounting for emotional and cognitive problems.
We have heard the pleas of the ordinary Territorians. One woman told the NT News families affected include:
In November The Australian newspaper reported the findings of another NT report of Alcohol and Other Drugs not yet publicly released: direct evidence of injecting drug use in Borroloola; health centres concerned about increasing numbers of clients presenting who have used or been exposed to meth in Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin and Nhulunbuy; and in Darwin a sample of 447 clients revealed 22% identifying it as their primary drug of choice.
Police have told us non-Aboriginal staff are already using synthetic drugs in some larger remote settlements. There is evidence locals are experimenting. We need to heed this growing ice epidemic that can wreak so much harm in our community.
Victoria established and undertook a Royal Commission into the ice epidemic. In the last 12-month period in Victoria there were more than 3200 meth-related assaults and almost 4000 burglaries.
Terry Goldsworthy, the Assistant Professor of Criminology at Bond University said
That is why we believe there is a need for that interagency task force.
The Victorian government has recently released an Ice Action Plan. I will table the Ice Action Plan. I note that the action plan is identified into six categories. The first is Helping Families. It has committed $4.7m in additional support for families and communities to prevent and address ice use and a new dedicated ice helpline, a one-stop shop that directs families and health professionals to the support they need. The second category is Supporting Frontline Workers with $1m for training courses to give frontline workers the skills they need to deal with users and expand clinical supervision training. The third category is More Support, Where It’s Needed, with $18m to expand drug treatment focusing on rehabilitation for users in rural and regional areas, and $1.8m for needle and syringe programs to make harm reduction more effective. The fourth category is Prevention is Better than a Cure, supporting skills and creating more jobs, education campaigns that target people who are most at risk, and smarter use of technology. Category five is Reducing Supply on our Streets with $4.5m to expand Victoria’s police forensic analysis capability to shut down clandestine laboratories. Category six is Safer, Stronger Communities with $15m for new drug and booze buses to get ice users off the road, and $500 000 to support the work of people who know their communities best.
I am not proposing we have the same scale as Victoria, nor am I proposing the figures contained in the Victorian response would be the appropriate funding required in the Northern Territory. I am saying jurisdictions which have gone on the journey before us have had a Royal Commission, so there is a body of evidence the select committee could turn its mind to. The Northern Territory, having its own unique circumstances, I daresay would have unique responses as well.
I seek leave to table the Ice Action Plan of the state government of Victoria.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: Some of the things we have come to understand about this ice epidemic are the grief expressed by Territory families and frontline workers, the need for a coordinated plan in response, and for that to include prevention, treatment, harm-reduction strategies and justice and law enforcement responses.
The last six months has seen an explosion in property-related crime across the Territory. Our police have attributed part of this rise to the increased use of ice. A comparison of those figures for 2013-14 show that in just the last 12 months house break-ins have increased 49% in Darwin and motor vehicle theft 22.8%. In Palmerston, break-ins for houses were 34.3%, commercial break-ins a 98.8% increase and motor vehicle theft a 44.9% increase. Looking at just the past 12 months in Palmerston, 500 motor vehicle thefts is the highest it has ever been. We have seen 1903 assaults in Darwin, the highest it has ever been, and 131 commercial break-ins in Katherine, the highest it has ever been. We know 2013 was a high year for crime against the person, but overall crime against the person has increased by 10.8% in the Territory in the past year. The data is screaming for a response to the ice epidemic so I am pleased the select committee has been established.
I note with concern the Department of Health annual report shows a $2.5m reduction in Alcohol and Other Drugs funding for 2014-15 and a budget underspend of $17m in 2013-14. I draw the Health minister’s attention to this. It is pretty important that we have an AOD sector capacity for a response to this scourge.
Territorians, strong proud people, have voiced their pleas saying there is no help for them in their struggle to deal with the meth use by their loved ones. Grandmothers have organised themselves into a group crying out for help. They worry the only safe place for their kids and grandkids affected by ice is gaol and ask why it should come to that; commit a crime to go to gaol. They have been alarmed there are no specialist meth treatment centres in the NT.
My colleague, the member for Casuarina, has noted in debate in this Chamber that the direction of the government in regard to the Chief Minister’s statement last sittings was contained in only four lines under the title ‘Helping Vulnerable Territorians’. Perhaps this select committee marks a change in that direction, so we can reach out and help incredibly vulnerable Territorians through the good work of this parliamentary select committee.
The Northern Territory AMA President, psychiatrist Rob Parker, said in relation to the need for an ice room at RDH:
He also said that the spread of meth is putting intense pressure on hospitals and we are seeing a significant rise in people developing psychosis from amphetamine use.
We know an unstable person, liable to do anything at any moment, might require strong security to contain them and protect health staff. This is why we are seeking a specific response in regard to the ice room at Royal Darwin Hospital.
I thank the government for heeding the calls of the opposition and our community to take action on the scourge of ice in the Territory. I recognise the scope of the debate from law enforcement through to health, but add to that community and agency support for families and individuals affected by ice users. That should not be missed and I deeply encourage a strong response in prevention. The children in our school systems are open and aware. Surely we can turn some attention towards giving them real facts and information, which I pray and hope means they say no when offered a taste of this destructive crystal meth.
Madam Speaker, I urge the committee to work across our communities and listen, attend with an open mind, but also rely on best evidence and practice. Good luck with the work.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support of this motion.
The other day I attended a public meeting at the Malak shops, where I met many parents and grandparents who were looking after kids affected by ice. I place this into a contextual arrangement: one things I want out of this committee is to determine the actual depth of the problem.
I recall as a police officer in the 1980s, PCP – or angel dust as it was called at the time – was a scourge which would end the world. Doubtlessly it had a very serious impact, but that came and went. In the 1990s it was crack cocaine, which was a stimulant similar to ice and one of the variant forms of speed, which would end the world. Then the methamphetamines in their powdered forms for injection started to arrive which caused a great deal of concern, as it should have. Nowadays, in the mid-2010s, another variant form of methamphetamine is making an appearance in its crystallised form so it can be smoked.
I reminded people at that meeting that whilst I was in no way diminishing their care and concern for their loved ones and children, which was heartfelt and genuine, I wanted to place the use of those drugs in the context that for as long as humans have been humans a percentage of the population has always tried to find some form of intoxication and become intoxicated. I suspect if you lined up all of the forms of licit and illicit drugs available in the marketplace today, it is very unlikely you would choose the two that have become legalised drugs: alcohol or tobacco. Nevertheless, those are the two legal drugs we have allowed in our community, largely because we have become used to them.
There is, however, a useful exercise in creating a distinction between the stimulants you find in ice and alcohol and tobacco. It is also useful to look at some parallels that are worthwhile examining. In distinctions, the drugs of choice of the 1970s – particularly heroin which was very fashionable in the 1970s and 1980s and it is still out there to a much lower level nowadays – whilst they had a very quick effect, were depressant. In fact, alcohol is a depressant. Mind you, on Mitchell Street you could be forgiven for thinking it was not. As a depressant drug it has a more profound effect on our community today than all of the illicit drugs gathered together.
Tobacco, of course, is the vehicle by which we deliver nicotine into our systems. There is an interesting parallel between tobacco and ice. Anybody who has ever smoked would know that as a drug delivery system the interface of the aioli in the lungs and the bloodstream is extraordinary. In fact, if you were to take the surface area of aioli in the lungs and lay them out you would cover the area of a tennis court. This means when you inhale a cigarette and fill your lungs with nicotine-laced cigarette smoke, the effect of the drug on your system and brain is pretty much instantaneous.
Anybody who remembers their first drag on a cigarette after which they sat with their head buzzing knows the transition from drawing on the cigarette and having the drug delivered to the brain is almost immediate. I understand ice has exactly the same effect. The reasons it is becoming popular in its smoked form is (1) it is very easy to smoke the drug as you do not have to source injecting equipment, but (2) as a drug delivery system, smoking is probably one of the most effective and is equal to injection. It is perhaps even more effective than injection depending on the chemical used.
As I said, a percentage of the population has always sought out these types of drugs and found themselves in a situation where they become addicted.
It was always surprising to me when I read documents on drugs like heroin that there was a large number of ‘recreational’ users of heroin. In fact the vast majority of people who have used heroin historically have been recreational users. The reason we do not see them lying in our parks and gardens is because they do not display the addictive nature which seems to be peculiar to a percentage of the population. An addicted heroin user lying in a park is indistinguishable to me from an alcoholic lying in a park. It seems the individual, if they have developed an addiction for a particular drug, will choose to pursue that addiction into the gates of prison, insanity or even death.
Ice is making its presence felt in the Northern Territory. The anecdotal evidence seems to be that ice is being used by an increasing number of people. The problem is, in its smoked form it becomes a very quick rush indeed. As a consequence, those people who become addicted to the drug become addicted very quickly. The transition from normal human being to an emaciated, wasted mess occurs in months, not years, as is the case with many other drugs. I suspect one of the reasons the drug is considered so confronting is because the transition from healthy to addicted wreck is so sharply defined by a short passage of time. I invite members to look at some of the transition mug shots available on YouTube on their computers to see how quickly the transition occurs. There are some very ghastly photographs there.
The other issue is this drug creates a very apparent health problem. What occurs when a person starts to use the drug addictively is degeneration of skin and teeth, a slack-jawed, vacant look and, of course, the indifference to their own health and hygiene in pursuit of the next hit.
As a parent or grandparent I image seeing your daughter or grandchild addicted to something that makes such a profound physiological impact would be traumatic, but nowhere near as traumatic as the psychological impact that also becomes manifest. Because this drug gathers momentum amongst its addicted users so quickly the psychotic episodes described by the Leader of the Opposition are also very confronting. Those psychotic episodes often will bring the addict either to the attention of the police or, alternatively, the health system.
As Minister for Mental Health Services I have been very mindful that there is a relationship between mental health services and the criminal justice system which needs some attention. I hope, through the budget process, we will be able to find some money to make some inroads there.
I also heard the Leader of the Opposition’s call for an ice room. I wish to correct the Leader of the Opposition on some information she has received. The powers to restrain a person in accident and emergency are precisely the same powers used to restrain a person in Cowdy Ward if restraint is required. The powers are granted by the Mental Health and Related Services Act. Where a person presents having a psychotic episode, whether they are in accident and emergency, a ward or Cowdy Ward, those powers are precisely the same. There is no distinction in the mental health legislation of the Northern Territory as to where those powers should be used. Those powers exist quite correctly to protect a person from themselves, or alternatively to protect society from that person.
I have listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition’s rationale for calling for an ‘ice room’. She confirms, in my mind, the reservation I have in relation to calling it an ‘ice room’. The Leader of the Opposition’s argument is that when a person addicted to ice presents then they will have some form of behaviour which will be revealed through a psychotic presentation or, alternatively, some sort of paranoid delusion which will make that person violent. I do not dispute that is correct.
The only reason I would be a little hesitant about calling it an ‘ice room’, even if we go down that path, is by its nature it would preclude other forms of psychosis. If we go down that path – it is still under advice – then the question would be why call it an ‘ice room’. If a psychotic episode was brought on because of some other degenerative condition – perhaps by the use of alcohol, a manifestation of schizophrenia or another drug of addiction – calling it an ‘ice room’ would make it inappropriate for a person if the psychotic presentation had nothing to do with ice.
It is good politics, no doubt about it. I would prefer to have a room, if we were to do such a thing, to describe the behaviour we were trying to target, irrespective of whether the psychosis was a result of the presence of ice or another reason. The Leader of the Opposition is focusing on the nature of the behaviour of a person having a psychotic episode. To call it an ‘ice room’ would limit other people using it and I do not think that would be fair.
I am not discounting that. However, I have been to Cowdy Ward and accident and emergency on a number of occasions and spoken to many of the practitioners. One of the sad problems we have is manifestation of the nature of randomness in that it clumps. If you look at a Keno board in a pub you will often be surprised that as the numbers come up they tend to clump together in little groups. It does not look random, but that is how randomness becomes manifest. A number of scientific papers have been written on the nature of randomness, and the fact in the first instance it does not appear to be random at all.
It is similarly so with the presentation of random ice users to police or the health system. The frustration amongst some of the workers in Cowdy Ward is we have the capacity to restrain these people within that ward and can move them reasonably easily from the accident and emergency section to the ward, but if three or four people come in through the door that presents a challenge because there is a limit in the capacity to contain that many presentations at once. That is something I am looking at and am mindful of.
When I went to the Cowdy Ward to visit this plague of ice users, there were no ice users being restrained. That is also the nature of randomness. I could have gone there two days later and there could well have been three or four people present.
As a consequence of those observations, I need to determine the depth of the problem. Whilst it is anecdotal, there are other sources of evidence – I will ask the Health department to give this evidence to the inquiry – which suggests methamphetamine use presentations have not substantially changed over the last few years. However, when that information was presented to me, I was told it was suspected that some forms of methamphetamines have become less prevalent, and as a consequence there was an increase in the number of presentations of the crystal meth – or ice – variant of methamphetamines. I accept that; it tells me that the overall numbers may not necessarily be changing, but the presentations of ice alone are changing. I would like this committee to look at that because you must identify a problem accurately in an effort to respond to it.
The other problem I have with any form of illicit drug in our community is it can and does generate criminal activity. This invites conversation about the nature of how we manage drugs in our community. Some would simply say we are making a mistake by making any drug illicit, and by doing so we create a substantial organised crime structure. There is an element of truth in the creating of organised crime structure. Organised crime in the United States was a fairly remote and unusual thing up until the 1930s, when prohibition came into operation. Mind you, in the United States – in those days and still to a degree today – you are held responsible for your actions. You could develop an addiction to any of the variant drugs that were lawful at the time – heroin in the form of laudanum, cocaine in a popular brand of soft drink, cannabis was freely available up until the early 1900s and, of course, alcohol which was ultimately banned. There was little to create a black market around.
However, after the banning of alcohol there was the manifestation of crime syndicates such as the organisations headed by the Al Capones of the world during the 1930s. Subsequent to the 1930s, particularly after World War II, pushing into the 1950s and 1960s, the focus moved from the now again legal alcohol to the supply of other drugs. It continues to be a major industry in the United States.
This is what drives the comments from many people suggesting we are going about this incorrectly and we should respond to drug abuse in our community not as criminal conduct but some health issue, and not necessarily make it all illegal. The argument is that even where certain types of drugs have been made lawful – Holland is an example where cannabis is freely obtained over the counter and smoked, and in Colorado and other places – there is not a great increase in addiction.
I used to have a great deal of sympathy for that position. However, I looked very closely at what has been happening in Colorado. Perhaps it will settle down, but curiously there is still a substantial black market in the cannabinoids in Colorado which is causing any number of problems. That black market is for those people who cannot lawfully obtain cannabis. A person will walk into a shop, purchase some cannabis, walk out of the shop and sell that cannabis at a substantial profit to the nearest person who cannot obtain that cannabis. Of course, that person will be somebody under the age of 21 years of age.
Regulation then becomes an issue. You then ask how we regulate this thing. Even our community of course ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly. I am sorry, I did not realise I had spoken for so long.
The use of alcohol regulations in our community is an ongoing problem. We try to regulate it. It is freely available. If I wanted to I could possess alcohol this morning or this afternoon by buying it. We have a Liquor Act which is equally as thick as our Criminal Code Act, and we still struggle with the net effects.
Here is the truth of it. Whilst calls for the legalisation may have some rationale, there is a societal expectation from the mums and dads that these drugs remain illegal and we as a community will continue policing these drugs aggressively. I agree. For that reason, recently with the support of all members of this House – and I again express my gratitude – I turned methamphetamines from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 2 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The reason we chose to do so is we decided it was not a cannabinoid or one of the more benign forms of drugs, it was a drug which was as destructive in our community – in fact, we would agree I suspect in this House at the moment more destructive – than heroin.
As a consequence of accepting this notion we will, as a government, continue to push hard laws. In recent times, I was with the Solicitor-General in the High Court in Canberra fighting the matter of Emerson where we are taking drug dealers’ houses from them. We will continue to do so because fines that are levied go nowhere near replacing the amount of money we spend on policing these illicit substances. In fact, even when we take their houses from them we still spend vastly more on policing than we will ever recover in property.
Frankly, if you are a declared drug dealer I do not care whether or not the house was the product of your illicit trade. If you have the property in your possession it should be forfeited because that is what the public expects. Of course, when there is a marketplace there is a supplier, and that is what happens with ice.
As I said earlier, I attended a meeting in Malak recently. Donna Hunter was there. I thank her, Natalie Hunter and the other parents who attended for their input in relation to this. I attended with the minister for Police, Peter Chandler. I place on the record my gratitude to those parents, not only as a member of this parliament but also as a member of the community. Clearly they care about what is happening to their families.
They suggested and we accepted the idea that a parliamentary committee such as the one held in Victoria, referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, would be valuable in describing the nature of the problem we have and the response we should make as a community. As a consequence we are now in this House. I place on the record my thanks to those ladies on that committee for the establishment of this committee to look into the prevalence, nature and impact ice has on our community.
I support the motion brought on by the Chief Minister, Adam Giles. I am not sure if we have to go through the necessary steps of amending the motion because we will accept, on face value, the member for Casuarina rather than the member for Nhulunbuy on that committee. I will take some guidance from the Clerk in regard to process, but I suspect nobody will raise an objection to the amendment.
Madam Speaker, as a consequence, I look forward to the report of this important committee to this House, and the guidance this committee will give government in how we deal with this issue in our community. I hope we are not afraid to be stridently firm in our response as a government and a community. If it means the committee comes to a conclusion that we continue to deal with both the users and the providers as criminals, I would personally welcome that.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate in relation to establishment of a parliamentary committee on ice. I take the role of being on the committee very seriously and understand the important and huge amount of work we have ahead of us. I am pleased and look forward to being part of that over the coming months.
I commend the community because people have been so vocal on this issue over quite a significant period of time. There have been many public meetings held specifically on the issue of ice, as have been referred to by various members of this House. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for raising the issue and calling for action before and during our sittings in February. This was a result of significant community concern from both families and organisations, all seeing the impacts of this substance which has the potential to, and is, devastating lives across the Territory. A GBD item which came about as the direct result of the pleas of the community was to be carried over from the February sittings in relation to this.
I commend the CLP government for the announcement yesterday of a parliamentary committee to look at the evidence surrounding ice in our community and our potential responses. While it did not go as far as the interagency task force that was suggested, it is a step forward in having a proper dialogue about this issue. I know many members of the community have been waiting for that.
One of the reasons the task force was suggested is we need to be talking to those who see these issues on a daily basis. They know them inside out; they are the experts. They already have some recommendations for things we need to be doing now. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of balance. This does not stop us from doing things that need to be done now, because consultation about this issue needs to take into account what needs to be done in the long term to stem the use of ice and its impacts on the community.
We also need to take into account how we stop this from becoming a crisis. As the Leader of the Opposition put it, we need to make sure we do not miss the boat when considering the needs of the sector and the community in current project and budget planning. This is very important. The work the committee does not stop us from looking at the existing evidence that supports immediate action.
In regard to the suggestion of the ice room, there has already been discussion about what the ice room will be called and whether or not the resource could be used. Regardless of the semantics of the name of the ice room, it is very positive that we are talking about potential solutions and resources to help our health practitioners do their work in a safe and effective way. We need to continue to discuss and investigate this.
I recall speaking to Turning Point, which is an organisation based in Melbourne, about two years ago. It runs the NT Alcohol and Other Drug Service, which many other services here rely on as a referral point. The service provides 24-hour telephone counselling on a range of different issues. The national increase of people seeking help for personal use of this drug, or for advice about others’ use, was noted two years ago. In our community it has risen dramatically in a short period of time. I note on their website in May last year, in response to the issue of ice in Victoria, they called for a community approach on this issue.
Which framework to use has been raised today. Does this fit into the justice, health, or community framework? That is an important conversation to have. I imagine our consultations with the experts will point us in the direction of which framework is most appropriate.
I add food for thought. Within a harm-minimisation model the National Drug Strategy 2010-2015 currently adopts, each of the reference frameworks has a place. The three arms of harm-minimisation – harm reduction, supply reduction and demand reduction – are all highly accepted in drug strategies these days. They are all essential to reducing the impacts of any drug, including alcohol. They require an integrated response in which each of the different frameworks – health, justice, the social sector and the broader community – all come together and interact to play a role in reducing harm from drugs such as ice or alcohol, as the member for Port Darwin discussed. These partnerships must not only be encouraged but supported through policy and practice.
As mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, I have worked in different roles regarding these issues. I was working with police in an early intervention alcohol program where one of the trickiest things was getting the different frameworks to interact. It is easy to look at issues through one lens – whether that is Justice or Health – but we need to ensure these systems are interacting and looking at the issues and people as a whole.
I hope the committee can look at encouraging different sectors to work together and get the community involved in reducing the harms of ice. There are many community-based organisations already convening meetings in relation to the impact of ice on families. Many organisations are seeing the rise of ice use in the clients accessing their services. It is timely we are a part of that meaningful conversation in this way.
One of these groups is the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network which has held at least two public community meetings in relation to ice. This shows the important crossover between issues. I will touch on something raised by the member for Port Darwin and me previously in this House. There are often connections between substance abuse and mental health. We do not address that very well. Potentially, there is also a greater need for integrated responses around such issues.
It goes without saying we are hopeful time frames for this inquiry allow for adequate and effective responses to be taken into account in budget planning, so any recommendations that come out of this committee are taken seriously and can be implemented. It should be noted that the original proposal from the Leader of the Opposition was that action would be swift given the rapid rise in use our families and stakeholders are seeing and dealing with, and should take into account the perspectives of a large range of experts from health, social, justice and law enforcement sectors and our community. The community wants to discuss solutions. There is a sense of urgency because this issue is entering Territory homes and impacts on a range of different people for a range of reasons.
Ice is but one substance of concern for the community. I hope the committee will not only look at this substance as an isolated beast, but also within the context of availability, and importantly the reasons why Territorians are turning to such illicit substances.
The recent public NT Drug Trends report in 2013 saw experts share their concerns about the availability of crystal methamphetamine and showed that a market was more established in the Northern Territory, with two-thirds of the survey responding that it was ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to obtain.
There is a range of reasons why people take illicit drugs, from those whose use is often described as recreational, those who self-medicate and those who experience high levels of addiction. The results can be tragic: death, injury and chronic illness. We have heard today some of the many different things that happen to people who misuse ice …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Casuarina, can I just interrupt to welcome some visitors.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Year 6 Palmerston Christian School accompanied by Megan Kennedy. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MOSS: … harm to others including to children and withdrawal from home life, work life and education. When we are talking to experts I hope we talk to those who are also involved in service provision to children and families.
One of the reports I will be having another look at is the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education’s report, The Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harms to Others. I know this is about alcohol, but there is a great deal of useful information in it, particularly about the impact alcohol misuse has on other people from people within a user’s home, to the children, to strangers. The number of substantiated child protection cases that come from that alcohol misuse is huge. That is a good resource to use to decide how we need to address these issues.
Further, there is a ripple effect in the things people who misuse a drug like ice might be doing to pay for the drugs they are using. Last night a number of us spoke specifically about escalating property crime around Darwin and Palmerston. The committee will do well to investigate the intercepts between many of these issues. There is much evidence about crime and ice use we are currently seeing, and also the prevalence of poly-drug use.
We need to hear from experts about the potential community responses, from community education and prevention right through the spectrum to how we deal with families who are in crisis and how we support those people. I have no doubt there are many stakeholders, including community members, who have firsthand experience of the impacts of ice who will also welcome this announcement and be hopeful of the opportunity to contribute to the dialogue.
I note that NTCOSS and Amity are among those which have already welcomed the announcement of the establishment of this committee. Given the services which are reporting an increase in the number of people using ice they are seeing as clients, I expect there will also be many more. Hopefully through this committee there can be tools and resources identified that will help those on the front line to protect those who are under the influence of ice.
A growing number of community members are seeing the harsh effects of chronic use of crystal methamphetamine so Labor welcomes action on seeking potential responses to this issue. I reiterate that we want to be sure that recommendations identified are considered seriously for implementation when they are released in September, and stakeholders are kept informed of the progress of the committee given that this is such an important and personal topic for many members of the broader Northern Territory community.
It is also important that we get to regional areas to get the full context of the depth of this issue in the Northern Territory and make sure we are listening to what the community and those who work amongst these issues everyday are saying.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House. I am looking forward to having those discussions with the committee.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, the author of this quote is unknown:
When doing some research into crystal meth and having personal experience of friends, colleagues and family involved, you know how powerful this drug is.
With my good friend the Attorney-General, John Elferink, I attended a meeting only a few weeks ago in Malak and heard firsthand the experience from not only the families that are involved, but also from users who had beaten the habit. In fact one gentleman, John if memory serves me right, had been involved with meth for over 10 years. It had stolen his life for 10 years. It had taken him 10 years to rid himself of the problem his life became under the control of this substance. He explicitly detailed some things he had put his family through and what it did to his life. It was an eye opener for me to hear these stories. John and I had a discussion afterwards.
We spoke with the Chief Minister and Cabinet about this drug and what approach the government should be taking. The committee will provide some further guidance in what approach we should take. I agree with what has been said on both sides of the House today; that the approach needs to be swift, careful and stepped through.
That is not to say the government is not already working in this space. The member for Port Darwin spoke about some things the government was doing in the health area, but more about the drug itself. In my mind, government needs to take an approach that covers not only how to provide the right services for users of meth, but also training and support for those staff members on the front line working with these people, seeing how they present into our health and police systems.
I am not trying to pre-empt what the committee will recommend, but I hope it will come up with some recommendations on how we can introduce messages, such as the poem I just read, into our education system earlier. The only real way to defeat drugs such as meth is through education and stopping somebody in the first place, because once they have a taste of this stuff, in many circumstances they are hooked. For the benefit of the community, the only true way we will ever win is individually, with each person we can prevent from going down that path in the first place.
I have some facts about ice in front of me, as well as some of the things government is doing. I do not want to say that government is not taking action, because we are in this regard, but the committee will hopefully provide us with more advice.
Before I move to these statistics, I applaud the member for Blain, Nathan Barrett, for wanting to chair this committee. This will be a tough one, but I have every confidence in his leadership in finding out the approaches taken by other jurisdictions, as well as the best approach for the Northern Territory government. That will not be easy. Nathan, I will provide you as much support as I possibly can as minister for Police. I acknowledge how tough it will be given the circumstances in the Territory. We not only have to focus on cities, but have the tough challenge of dealing with meth use in remote communities. You have a big task ahead of you. Again, I offer my support where I can.
Anecdotal evidence from the law enforcement and treatment providers confirms that ice use by dose and user figures is increasing. The highly-addictive properties of ice result in users quickly becoming addicted and needing to access more of the drug to satisfy their drug-seeking urges. The high price paid for ice in dollar terms means people using this drug will resort to other offending to feed that addiction, as with many drugs. The nexus between property crime and illicit drug use is clearly identified, and the trading of stolen goods to support a habit is not uncommon. Other offending which goes with drug abuse is often violence, whether perpetrated on family members or other community members. Drug users are volatile and may react in ways that cause significant harm and injury, often with children present.
In response to this, the Northern Territory police has several policing strategies and methodologies that is employed to tackle illicit drug use and supply. The Drug and Organised Crime Division has three teams that form a targeted policing response: a dedicated ATS team with drug and organised crime; a specialised unit trained in the detection and dismantling of clandestine laboratories (clan labs) – this unit also provides training to other police such as general duties officers to identify drug paraphernalia that indicates potential presence of clan labs; and Gang Task Force is responsible for the investigation and enforcement of outlaw motorcycle gangs, organised crime groups and other criminal syndicates. Additionally, the team is responsible for coordinating the response to the national organised crime enforcement bodies and joint task forces as they arrive.
The task force encompasses members from the Australian Federal Police National Anti-Gangs Squad and operates in partnership with the national objectives to detect, disrupt and dismantle organised crime within the Northern Territory and Australia. Intel provides tactical- and strategic-level intelligence assistance in all avenues of crime within the Northern Territory and Australia. Members are co-located in the majority of investigative sections in a supportive role defined as field intelligence officers. These members provide specialised technical- and intelligence-related analysis. Field officers are supported by the operation of an intelligence section which provides greater level analytical support including strategically orientated analysis to divisional managers and the executive group.
Ice use and the resultant harms to the community is a priority of the Northern Territory police. The abuse of ice is a national issue and localised responses are under development across all jurisdictions. A key priority is effectively engaging people regarding the harms of ice before they become users, as the addiction rates with this substance are higher than has been seen historically with similar substances.
Drug traffickers and organised crime groups continue to target the Northern Territory market, in part due to the significant financial return gained in some remote parts of the Northern Territory and a high demand for illicit substances by a young cash-rich user group of labourers and tradesmen. The Northern Territory Police Force continues to successfully cause disruption to the illicit drug supply trade, with dedicated drug and organised crime squads and a regionalised drug desk and intelligence operatives facilitating a response against illicit substances.
Drug traffickers may operate independently or as part of a wider organised crime network that includes activities within other jurisdictions. Offences involving drug trafficking, supply and manufacture often involve other offences. Violent offending includes weapon use and is commonplace among chronic meth users and organised crime activity including violence, extortion and firearm offences. Violent crime and death related to the use and supply of ice and new psychoactive substances in the NT is on the increase.
The volume of amphetamine-type substances intercepted is almost double that of the previous financial year. The 2014 figures to date are trending to a further increase in these figures. Clandestine laboratory activity is increasing with Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services successfully disrupting production of at least six sites in the past six months. Intensive targeting of drug manufacturers remains a high priority.
Indigenous communities remain a destination of choice for many drug traffickers. These communities experience a high demand for substances such as cannabis, kava and alcohol and profit margins are considerable. Recent seizures have impacted on kava supply. However, traffickers will continue targeting vulnerable communities for profit. These traffickers are predominantly of Tongan ethnicity from eastern states. Northern Territory police will continue to employ intelligence-led targeting strategies to maximise the results obtained.
The NT has a sound assets forfeiture regime that targets the assets of the criminals used or derived through crime and unexplained wealth.
The Northern Territory police remain committed to a reduction in crime and will continue to target drug-related secondary crimes such as stealing and trading in stolen goods. Emerging illicit drug supply and use trends are examined to inform policing strategies in keeping communities safe from illicit drug presence in the community, and to target dangerous drugs supply.
Through policy development and evaluation the Northern Territory police will ensure relevant legislation is contemporary and reflective of the level of harm these substances bring to our community. Current reform proposals are in the final stages of drafting for consideration and include firearm offences, particularly where illicit drug involvement exists, dismantling organised crime activity and violent offending and amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act for repeat or organised drug traffic offences.
In summary, I am glad this committee appears to have bipartisan support. There is a lot to be done. This drug appears to be making its presence felt not only in the Northern Territory, but across Australia, and in fact the world. Anything governments can do to improve the system for everybody – that is how we police it, how we educate people and how we treat people and provide support services for families – should be supported. We will be searching high, low, and as far and wide as possible to find that information by looking at other jurisdictions and things done around the world, taking into account our circumstances in the NT including remoteness and some of the issues that could be faced if ice was to get a real foothold in some of our remote communities.
I take my hat off to the committee and the chair, the member for Blain, for taking this challenge on and for the bipartisan support it appears to have to ensure we work together to find an approach this government can use to get on top of such an horrendous issue.
To those people John and I met recently, again thank you for sharing your stories and giving us insight into what it was like to have a family member involved with this drug and how it ripped at the very core of that family. For the people who shared their story, thank you. Thank you to Donna Hunter and the others involved in that meeting. Let us work together and see if we can solve this.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the Assembly.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. Drugs and alcohol are having a significant impact on remote and regional communities. This is not new. Issues with addiction have been going on for decades. It is one of the biggest killers of Indigenous people each year.
Today the drugs of choice are alcohol, marijuana and to a growing extent sniffing of volatile substances. With each of these substances governments of all colours have been behind the eight ball and trying to deal with the abuse of these substances.
This government is making a strong move to address this issue. Today with this motion of establishing the select committee, we have the opportunity to get ahead of the game when it comes to ice and minimise its impact on our community. The terms of reference will allow us to find out what impact it is already having, what measures are currently in place for recording its impact and whether people who use and abuse ice are treated both in the health and the justice system. This committee will also allow us to access the responses of other states to this substance.
Madam Speaker, my knowledge of this drug is limited to what I have been told by my constituents and people on the street. I look forward to hearing from a range of stakeholders and learning more about this terrible drug so we can prevent and treat this abuse.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Arafura in what he just said. I also do not know a lot about ice, only the stuff you put in a drink to keep it cold, but that is about all. I have read plenty in the media. Today’s NT News has an article headed ‘Action overdue on meth curse’.
I want to keep a fairly open mind on this. I have done some work because the opposition will present a motion today on the issue of ice. I have spoken to people at Amity and Banyan House, and I thank them for the information they have provided. I have received detailed information from them which has given me a base level of knowledge to start with.
We must make sure if we are to do this properly we have enough staff to help, because there are many committees already established at present. I would hate to overload the staff to a point where the quality of our recommendations at the end of this is compromised. We have not finished the petrol pricing inquiry, the energy inquiry or the port inquiry and this inquiry and other committees will be on the run. We also have estimates coming up after the budget. So many things are happening. I am not complaining about the workload, but I am more concerned the government will ensure there is enough staff so these reports are all done without staff being overworked; I do not think that would help the situation. We need a good quality report to this parliament.
A number of reports have already been done. There is the NT Drug Trends 2013: Findings from the Illicit Drug Reporting System, Australian Drug Trends Series No 116, by C Moon. This has a series of articles dealing with methamphetamine, or ice. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Victorian report, but it is interesting to read the magazine called Of Substance. This is from November 2014, the title of the article is ‘Ice Epidemic: Fact or Fiction?’ It has some interesting material, but it also mentions the Victorian parliament’s inquiry into the supply and use of methamphetamines, particularly ice, and has a series of recommendations.
We need to ensure we are across all of the existing reports before we try to write our own. We do not want to repeat inquiries. We need to look specifically at the Northern Territory’s case, using some of the experiences from other states to see where we fit into the whole picture of concern, not only in the Territory, but in other states.
One impression I got from my meetings with the two groups was there is a tendency for people already using drugs to shift to ice. It is not certain whether it is an increase in the number of people using drugs, or in the type of drug that drug users are on. That was mentioned to me in my discussions with people at Amity and Banyan House. We have to look at these things and find out whether they are the facts.
I hope the committee looks at the relationship between ice and domestic violence. It is something I raised with these groups. I get the impression it possibly is one of the major factors. It can be from the victim’s and the perpetrator’s point of view …
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from two Year 5/6 classes from Malak Primary School accompanied by Lorraine Kingham, Zowie Sumendra, Cathy Mauboy and Christine Milne. Welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: I have the impression there has been a relationship between the use of ice and domestic violence. Domestic violence is one of those things the police are cracking down on. I am not sure what the figures are, but it appears to me we are struggling against the curse of domestic violence. It will be interesting to see if there is a correlation between that and the increase in the use of this drug. From the figures I have in front of me, six or seven years ago this was not a major concern.
This is a new very potent form of amphetamine. Someone told me there is a part of your brain which – I did write down what it was called – is the pleasure sensors. With alcohol, yes, drink a bit more alcohol and you feel good. With cocaine, you feel about 400 times better. But with ice you feel about 1500 times better. That is the danger with this. It gives people a huge kick and feeling of pleasure. Then it has all those downsides the member for Brennan mentioned. So it is a drug that tempts you in then has consequences you may or may not realise which can cause major problems, not only to your own health but to other people’s health and to people like the police who might have to try to pick you up when you are in a state where you think you are bigger than Ben Hur.
It also has an effect in employment. People using it on work sites think they can work really well. They take it as a drug that makes them feel they can do lots of things on the job. But there is a downside to it, as we know.
The member for Blain wants to speak. I will not go much further than to say, yes, it is good that the government has issued the terms of reference for the committee. Like the member for Arafura, I do not know a lot about it, just what I have learnt recently. I want to keep a clear mind on it. Even though I have read what is in the paper, I do not know whether the scientific base of what they have written is accurate or not. We need to deal with the facts. We need to talk to the people on the ground, then come back to this parliament with some recommendations that can make a difference. The member for Casuarina mentioned there were three processes in regard to how you deal with drugs.
The idea of cracking down on supply is very important. We may never get rid of the supply, but I do not think we should stop trying. If we can crack down on that supply so it is difficult for people to make this drug and sell it, then we put a hole in the problems we have. That would not be very easy because we live in a big country and supply of drugs is very difficult to stop altogether.
However, we need to put more emphasis on drug enforcement. We have strict laws in the Northern Territory which include the forfeiture of property so that is an area we need to be looking at as well.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for proposing this committee. I am interested to hear what the chair of the committee has to say.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for proposing this. I feel very privileged to be the chair of this committee. It is something I feel very strongly about and have done for a while.
In a former life when I was a teacher I was teaching a chemistry class which was doing an assignment talking about drugs. A student came to me with the premise that drugs are bad and was doing his assignment on that. I said, ‘Actually, drugs are great’. There are so many drugs in existence today that address very specific problems. These drugs were designed and manufactured for a purpose, which is to help people. I am sure people on heart medication would agree with this, as would people taking diabetes medication.
Let us take the worst, heroin. Heroin is the most addictive drug on the planet. It is also the best painkiller on the planet. In certain rare cases, where people are terminal and in a lot of pain, heroin is produced pharmaceutically and given to people in order to dull that pain so they can communicate in an effective manner. For this reason a lot of drugs are quite good. It is not the use of the drug that is bad but the abuse of it.
After having a good look at ice I am compelled to change my opinion. This drug has no good use whatsoever. There is nothing good about this drug and what it does to any person. The effect it has on an individual, a family and the community is quite terrible. From an individual perspective we have seen the results of this, where people become itchy and scratch the skin off their body. I will not go into the weight loss emaciation the member for Port Darwin spoke of earlier. It is a mind-altering drug.
I have experienced two instances where someone in very close proximity to me has been under the influence of this drug and could not be reasoned with and was totally out of control. In my electorate a guy was jumping from roof to roof, which was quite a fair distance, terrorising a neighbourhood whilst high on this drug. In another case a close relative of mine was taking ice, had a mental episode and believed he was Don Juan DeMarco or something insane. He ended up in Cowdy Ward and needed a lot of help to overcome that.
I know two families very close to me that have been devastated by this drug. In one case the person was taking the drug to stay awake on night shift and subsequently became addicted. He ended up lying, cheating, stealing money from people and losing his job. He did not tell anybody he had lost his job and was still dressing to go to work in the morning but went to a friend’s house to take ice. No one noticed money was not coming in as he was borrowing money from everybody under the premise that he still had this job and would pay people back. He ended up destroying his family. He had a young child and it was devastating to see the effect on that family.
Another close person I spoke about ended up in a mental institution and has now been released. The effects of that drug and the depression he now faces puts him on the edge of suicidal tendencies frequently. We can see from an individual and family perspective that this is terrible.
From a community perspective I can say this drug has affected Blain. Young Jack was killed in a hit and run by a person who was on ice. This incident aroused a lot of anger in my community about use, abuse and sale of this drug. Many people in my community will be very thankful to the Chief Minister for presenting this committee motion.
We will look forward to getting advice and information from many different sources to make some recommendations on how we can best address this. Suffice it to say all of us in this room probably agree on this. It is time to go to war on this drug to try to get some things in place and get things moving to defeat it and the stop the effects it will have in our community.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with all members of parliament. Committees are good, particularly when it is something we can work on together and try to find some resolution. I thank the members opposite for their words and look forward to working with them in this committee. I thank the Chief Minister for bringing it forward.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is very fitting that the chair of the committee was the last person to speak. He provided a good summation of the committee and how it will present itself going forward. I thank everybody who has made a valid contribution today in the debate. I thank members opposite, the member for Nelson and my colleagues.
Everyone has provided a valuable contribution. I was very interested in hearing the member for Blain, who has raised with me on a number of occasions circumstances not only in his electorate but the rest of Palmerston, and the prevalence of ice and the issues around it, as have many other members of parliament. I thank the member for Arafura very much for his contribution today. I also note the Police minister and the Attorney-General provided valuable contributions.
The member for Nhulunbuy will not be on the committee, but the member for Casuarina will be. I look forward to her participation.
As I said in my opening comments, ice is a drug which presents many issues in our community. The community is rightly concerned about it. As government we need to get a fair amount of evidence behind us to identify the extent of the problem, the current resolutions of dealing with targeting the manufacture, distribution and trafficking, as well as how to best help chronic abusers and users with the best assistance we can provide.
I look forward to obtaining the report on 17 September – it may be earlier or later – and seeing how we can respond as government. In the meantime, if we can deal with any issues or provide any responses, we are very happy to do that. If members of the committee, particularly the chairman, want to speak about circumstances we can assist the committee with – government intervention or otherwise – we are happy to do that.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members of the Chamber for their contribution to date and for their support. I look forward to the Northern Territory government, as a collective, responding to a positive report and a very important community issue.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
The Assembly suspended.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 423 petitioners praying that low-level prisoners are not relocated to the old ANSTI site on Bees Creek Road. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I can respond to that petition forthwith by advising the member for Goyder and all members that decision will not be taken. We will not be taking up the facility in the Bees Creek Road area.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the receipt of Message No 24 from His Honour the Administrator dated 25 March 2015 regarding the Local Court Bill 2015.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the National Electricity (Northern Territory) (National Uniform Legislation) Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the transfer of economic regulation of the Territory’s prescribed electricity networks from the Utilities Commission to the Australian Energy Regular, referred to as the AER, and thus achieve greater alignment of the Territory’s regulatory arrangements with the national framework.
The Utilities Commission was established in 2000 as part of a series of regulatory reforms under the auspices of national competition policy. The commission is the Territory’s independent electricity network regulator with responsibility for administering the electricity networks third-party access regime, as well as for licensing electricity suppliers and monitoring of market conduct and performance.
Despite the Utilities Commission’s regulatory oversight and improved arrangements for third-party access to regulated electricity networks in the Territory, there is still a lack of competition in the Territory’s electricity market. This lack of competition is in part due to both potential and new entrants being concerned about differences between the Territory’s regulatory regime and the national one.
Adoption of the national electricity framework, including transferring electricity network regulation responsibilities to the AER, the national electricity network regulator, will improve certainty for national electricity suppliers to establish operations in the Territory.
This bill will enable the AER to regulate the Territory’s prescribed electricity networks through a three-phase approach. Phase 1 will begin on 1 July 2015, with the AER initially replacing the Utilities Commission as regulator under the Territory’s existing regulatory model. Part 5 of the bill amends the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act and the Electricity Reform Act to provide for the interim arrangements. Key changes to the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act primarily seek to replace and consolidate provisions spread across multiple Territory acts and correspond with those in the national electricity law where appropriate.
Amendments include: a new Part 3 to replace and consolidate various powers and functions of the regulator and its ability to make network price determinations; new Parts 3A and 3B to replace information gathering and disclosure provisions for the regulator; and a new Part 6 to replace procedures for the regulator to enforce compliance with the act. A new amendment has been included in Part 7 to provide for the making of regulations to enable modification to this act to correspond with those amendments in the national electricity law and to provide for associated transitional matters.
Transitional arrangements to ensure the continuation of certain required arrangements such as the gazettal of prescribed electricity networks, continuation of the existing 2014 to 2019 network price determination, continuation of other regulatory determinations and some transitional arrangements for the Utilities Commission, are included in the new Part 8.
Several minor amendments to the Electricity Reform Act are necessary and include transferring provisions regarding the creation and oversight of the Network Technical Code and Network Planning Criteria, and Energy Loss Factors Code from the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Code. This transfer is necessary so the Utilities Commission can retain administration over these technical codes which relate to electricity system operations, which are not the responsibility of the AER as an economic regulator.
Phase 2 will begin from 1 July 2016 and sees the AER continue the economic regulation of the Territory’s electricity networks under the amended Territory framework. However, the Territory will begin transitioning to the national framework from this date with some aspects of the national electricity law to be adopted.
Part 2 of the bill provides for the application of the national electricity law in the Territory, with modifications to suit the Territory circumstances as set out in Schedule 1. It also provides for the declaration of local distribution systems to be subject to economic regulation in Schedule 2, and confers the associated regulatory powers on the AER and the Australian Competition Tribunal.
Operating the Territory law with some aspects of the national law in tandem from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2019 will enable the AER to regulate the current network price determination made under the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act, while also preparing the 2019 to 2024 network price determination under the national legislation which commences after the expiry of the 2014 to 2019 network price determination.
Under Phase 3, the bill provides for further sections of the national electricity law to be adopted from 1 July 2019. This will see the AER regulate the Territory’s electricity networks under the national framework and the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act repealed.
The bill provides for the Territory to make exemptions, referred to as derogations, to the national electricity law and rules. The exemptions recognise that parts of the national framework are not suitable for the Territory situation, particularly given the Territory is not physically connected to the National Electricity Market. Examples of such derogations include exempting the Territory from participating in the National Electricity Market’s wholesale electricity exchange and treating provisions relating to the Australian energy market operator, which operates the National Electricity Market as inapplicable.
Given it is not possible at this time to predict what transitional provisions or consequential amendments will be required on 1 July 2019, and to cater for future changes to the national electricity law, Part 3 of the bill provides for the matters to be dealt with by regulation. This is similar to the approach taken recently by New South Wales and Queensland in their adoption of the National Energy Retail Law.
The bill will see network regulation transferred from the Utilities Commission to the AER, which is better resourced and has greater expertise. Further adoption of the national framework will improve certainty with national electricity suppliers to establish operations in the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bills.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 19 February 2015.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this bill. I thank the minister’s office for providing the opposition a briefing on this bill. For those interested, it was by phone conference. It allowed me to drive 220 km to get to the phone conference, as opposed to what would have been 1100 km. I thank all those members who attended the briefing. Thank you for the opportunity of acknowledging people who live in regional and remote areas.
NT Build was introduced to establish portable long service leave for the construction industry in 2005. It was a great reform delivered by the previous Labor government. Prior to the introduction of the scheme Territory construction workers were largely ineligible for normal long service leave provisions as the project-based nature of their work saw them moving between employers. This previously precluded them from accruing enough continuous work with one employer to become eligible for long service leave entitlements.
Establishing the scheme provided benefits to workers and the industry as a whole. Having portable long service leave for our construction sector improved our capacity to retain and attract skilled workers by making Territory working conditions more attractive.
In relation to the bill and the amendments to the bill regarding board membership, NT Build has performed well since its introduction. I acknowledge the past and present board members for their contributions. The board has been served well by experienced industry representatives. Presently the board is served by Barry Chambers as chair, a respected former senior NT public servant with extensive experience in industry; David Malone, executive director of the Master Builders Association NT, again a respected Territorian with experience in the public and private sector; Dick Guit the President of the Master Builders Association and General Manager of Sitzler who has worked in the Territory for decades and has considerable experience in the industry at many levels including senior management positions with large-scale local and national construction companies operating in the Territory; Nick Huddy, the NT Coordinator Cbus and representative of the CFMEU, who also has considerable experience of the sector in the Northern Territory; the ETU representative Michael Haire who also brings to the table knowledge of the local industry; and NT Treasury Assistant Under Treasurer, Craig Graham, who brings considerable skills and experience to the board.
I also pay tribute to Graham Kemp, now deceased, who was appointed to the inaugural NT Build Board as HIA Manager and continued his appointment as MBA General Manager. Graham was a passionate industry advocate who played a role in many industry reforms including NT Build.
I raise the board membership in this debate because the opposition has concerns with aspects of this bill, in particular the removal of the requirement for employee and employer representation.
It was pleasing to hear, as part of the briefing, that the NT Build scheme has been very successful. The government advised in that briefing that the NT Build scheme has a fund value of $75m with a liability of $38m. The briefing then explained that changes to the board reflect the need for that higher-level financial management, investment and legal expertise.
Having completed the briefing and continued with important consultation with stakeholders and constituents, the opposition now believes this aspect of the bill should recognise that industry experience is imperative to the continuation of a good balanced board. The move to bring an additional focus on governance and risk management skills to the board is supported. However, the Territory opposition thinks government and industry could be served by a balanced approach. It would be good to hear the minister’s response to that.
For instance, if the government moves completely to a handbook approach to board appointments, then it may overlook those people with extensive local industry knowledge and management experience who may not have the specific governance qualifications sought, but would bring great value to the board.
Has the government considered expanding the board to ensure local industry employers and employees can continue to have representation while also bringing in additional governance expertise? The Territory opposition believes there is room to achieve both. After all, we are looking at a scheme that has been financially well managed, a credit to the past and present board members and the NT Build team.
The Territory opposition supports a more balanced approach to ensure that the industry and construction worker representatives continue to be represented on the NT Build Board, and proposes the government consider maintaining at least one industry and employee representative.
In regard to the levy changes that represent the amendments in this bill, the amendment to require an actuarial report before the responsible minister can determine a project levy is supported. The opposition suggests that the actuarial report informing a levy change is tabled in this parliament.
Opposition’s research regarding this bill has established the minister’s determination in April last year that the project levy rate be reduced from 0.3% to 0.1% has generated much comment from stakeholders in the Territory. Following that announcement, the actuarial report prepared in June last year and tabled in this House in the last sitting recommended the scheme levy rate be maintained, and made the point that it may not be sustainable in the longer term. To be clear, I will quote from that report.
It was my understanding that in April 2014 the CLP reduced the levy rate to fund the scheme from 0.3% to 0.1% and raised the threshold for when the levy applies for project costs from $200 000 up to $1m.
In the Actuarial Review of administration, benefits and levy rate of the NT Build Construction Industry Long Service Leave Scheme as at June 2014 report dated January 2015, it said on page 6:
It would be interesting to hear the minister’s response to that important recommendation in an actuarial review of administration benefits and the levy rate of NT Build.
For the open accountability of the scheme the Territory opposition asks the government if it will commit to tabling in this House the actuarial report prepared in relation to project levy considerations. Does the government intend to review the project levy annually given the comments of the actuary?
In relation to qualifying service days, the Territory opposition supports the amendment that reduces the number of qualifying service days a worker needs to be credited with a year-long service leave credit from 260 to 220 days, as in other states.
The Northern Territory opposition does not support the removal of employer and employee representation from the NT Build Board. The NT Build scheme is a great initiative. Local board representation has delivered strong results for the scheme and the government. Industry and workers would be better served by a more balanced approach that continues local industry representation with additional governance and corporate management skills, instead of excluding local expertise. The 18 000 members of the scheme would expect some certainty and representation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we are interested in hearing the minister’s response in regard to the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Amendment Bill 2015, as the Territory opposition proposes actuarial review after 12 months and for the report to be tabled in parliament. The NT opposition proposes maintaining one industry and one union position on the board. Importantly, the Territory opposition calls for the minister and the government to address a worker awareness campaign. That would be a very good initiative in relation to this bill and the changes that will take place moving to the future.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am representing the Minister for Business, the person who has carriage of this bill, and I am very proud to do so. Unfortunately, he is off work. He has had a terrible injury and I understand he is recovering.
I am disappointed that the opposition could not find a pair for the minister. It is rather rude. Opposition members often ask us for pairs at times when their members are having babies, have sick children or want to go on bereavement leave. Government is always prepared to grant that pair. It seems when the boot is on the other foot, though, the opposition wants to play dirty, filthy political games. It is quite sad.
I am representing the Minister for Business and it is my great pleasure to respond to the shadow spokesman, the member for Barkly who, from what I heard, does not have great objections to changes to this bill. However, he has some concerns in a couple of areas, and I will address them if I can.
The member for Barkly questioned the need to change board positions. This long service leave fund of Build NT is a trust. The directors of that fund have a very clear understanding of the objectives of the fund, which are pretty simple. You are fundamentally dealing with two groups, as you rightly point out: employers and employees. The employers are the contributors to the scheme; the employees, of course, are the beneficiaries. The board’s position is about how it best limits the ongoing liability to employers, the contributors, and maximises the benefits for the beneficiaries, the employees.
Long gone are the ideological arguments we had about long service leave in the construction industry. That has been . It was your government that introduced this scheme. We could hark back to those arguments we had several years ago, but I do not think there is any point in that. The fact is we do have a long service leave fund now for construction workers in the Northern Territory that is somewhat well harmonised with similar long service leave funds for the construction industry in other jurisdictions of Australia.
My point, member for Barkly, is with the establishment of these funds I believe there was a great requirement to have employer and employee involvement to make sure the funds were established correctly and their terms of reference or constitutions were correctly put together. That has passed; the fund has been established. It is clearly there to benefit employees. It is there to ensure that employers can be confident their contributions are meeting the long service leave needs of their employees or contractors. For that reason the necessity to have strong employer and employee representation on these boards has somewhat subsided.
However, as you rightly point out there is a need for proper financial management and financial governance. I am led to believe and understand the NT Build scheme has assets of something like $80m, which in the context of retirement or superannuation funds would be considered rather small fry, but in the Territory that is a substantial fund of money. Most people would say we need to have proper governance systems in place and the people we select to be on those boards should be selected on merit. When I say ‘merit’, I am talking about merit of financial management and making sure members and employers are best looked after through their competing needs.
The long-term sustainability of the fund is being reviewed every 12 months. There is an actuarial review. You can feel comforted by that, member for Barkly. I will have to seek advice later to see whether that actuarial advice can and should be tabled in the parliament. I am not too certain of the detail contained in that advice; whether it relates to specific members’ benefits or it can be done as a whole. I can say we are happy to look at that. I will be seeking some advice later to see whether or not that is appropriate.
Treasury was looking at that initial advice that we reduce that contribution required by employers. The actuarial advice told us the scheme was somewhat oversubscribed, and based on future requirements we could reduce the amount of contribution required from businesses. That is what we have done. We have alleviated some of the burden on those companies that pay into the NT Build fund.
I am sure the opposition will agree with us when we say this has never been about a big stick to hit employers with; it is all about the long service needs of people who work in the construction industry. Providing their requirements are being met by the scheme, I am sure you would agree we will all be happy.
As I said, the scheme is being reviewed every 12 months. There will be actuarial advice taken on board every 12 months and decisions will be made about that level of contribution required from employers.
The other features of the bill, which no doubt you have read, are that major projects over $1bn are being changed so there is an ability to have agreements where those projects will also contribute to the fund.
We have reduced the numbers of days for years of service from 260 to 220, which is again a benefit for those in the construction industry who may not necessarily have worked 365 days a year. They can go from one job to another and sometimes find themselves for a couple of weeks between jobs. All of those things will benefit the beneficiaries of this fund and alleviate some of the pressure on employers.
From an employer’s side, as much as we can do to reduce their cost means they have more money to put more people in work. We do not want to see this fund being a quasi-tax on jobs. We are keen to make sure that people who work in the construction industry receive their long service leave like other employees and people in the workforce around the Territory and the country. At the same time, we do not want to see employers unduly burdened to the point where it starts to impact on their bottom line and their ability to grow their businesses and further employ people in the industry.
Member for Barkly, we have heard your concerns. You can be somewhat comforted that every 12 months there will be a review of that rate. It is not set in stone. I heard what you said about the actuarial advice. The key words there are ‘long-term sustainability’. Clearly we are focused on that as well. We are making short-term decisions but seriously looking at the long-term sustainability of the fund. We want to ensure it is sustainable into the long term, but we do not believe that having a set rate over the long term does that in the most efficient manner.
I am not too sure, member for Barkly, if you had other concerns. I made some dot points as we were going through …
Mr McCarthy: A worker awareness campaign.
Mr TOLLNER: I am not entirely sure that is required. These funds are now quite commonplace around the country. I remember 20 years ago they were not commonplace; they were starting to be introduced into the country and many people were not aware of them.
I put to you that pretty well everybody in the construction industry these days would know when they register with an employer they also register with their fund and they start to accrue long service leave. I am not certain of that but, member for Barkly, I am more than happy to take some advice on it. If there is a need we could look at working with the sector to see ways to raise awareness. My view – this is not a government view – is that pretty well everybody in the construction industry these days would know there are provisions for long service leave and have a pretty good idea how to do it. Young blokes and young ladies starting in the construction industry would be briefed up fairly quickly on that.
As I said, 20 or 25 years ago there was a need to run a worker awareness campaign around superannuation because it was not common then. Only public servants and employees of some big businesses had access to a super fund. After it became compulsory in 1992 there was a big consumer campaign. I do not see too much of that happening these days as people are now aware that when they go to a job their employer is contributing to a super fund. The same applies in the construction industry.
I thank the opposition for taking the time to consider this bill in detail. I have looked at it as the Treasurer and have been supportive of it in Cabinet because its long-term sustainability is not threatened. It is becoming a lean and mean fund inasmuch as it is run quite efficiently. That is another reason to sometimes limit the number of people on boards and to focus on those key areas of reducing costs for employers and maximising benefits for employees. That is what the concerns of the board are these days. The battles that took place in years gone by are things of the past. This is a job, in some way, for professional fund managers.
I note there is a transition to these board changes. It is not a wholesale get rid of all the employer association reps and the employee reps, but is being phased over a period where the desire is to ultimately get a handful of people with serious governance experience who can maximise those benefits.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 26 February 2015.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak against this bill on behalf of the Territory opposition because the changes the government is proposing break a compact with Northern Territory workers to, first and foremost, put their health, safety and welfare as a priority if they are injured in the course of their employment. The main beneficiaries of these amendments will be the insurance companies which will increase profits at the expense of long-term injured workers.
The opposition has not forgotten that on the day the government forced through the sale of TIO to Allianz, one of the world’s largest and richest insurance companies, you also flagged changes to our workers compensation regime. The opposition asked then, and asks again, whether Allianz was in the know about your plan to increase the profit pie for workers comp insurers with these changes, when it was negotiating to buy the Territory Insurance Office from the CLP government. In buying TIO, Allianz considerably increased its share of the workers compensation insurance market in the Territory. It will benefit financially from these amendments which cut benefits to injured workers.
The Territory opposition condemns this government for trying to play wedge politics on the issue by refusing twice last year to support Labor bills to extend workers compensation payments and benefits to firefighters who develop cancer in the course of their job of protecting us and our community.
We support aspects of this bill that pick up on what we were trying to achieve last year, finally bringing the NT into line with most of Australia in regard to firefighters. Our promise to firefighters is this: when we are elected to government we will implement further changes to this legislation to ensure we meet all of our obligation to firefighters who develop cancer, asbestosis or other conditions that most often take a long time to develop. Similarly, we welcome the changes that increase payments to the families of workers who die as a result of a workplace injury or accident. We welcome insurers being obliged to meet the costs of grief and other types of counselling for families and loved ones who suffer when a worker dies because of their employment.
On the balance of it, we cannot support this bill which takes from injured workers and gives the profits of insurers. That does nothing to ensure workers are properly rehabilitated or provided with further training and assistance to take on other work if they can no longer perform the work they did before being injured.
That rebadges the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act as the Return to Work Act, implying that getting injured workers back to work is a problem in our current scheme, when the facts show it is not. That implies that malingering workers are the problem when anyone working in this field knows that is not the case. That introduces a cruel whole-of-body impairment test to severely limit the number of long-term injured workers who will receive ongoing benefits after five years or medical treatment after six years. That duck shoves people off workers compensation and onto the public purse if they cannot gain employment after five years, or continue to require treatments or medications past the six-year cut-off. This breaks a pact made with NT injured workers in the late 1980s when the government of the day removed their rights to sue for damages in the court, instead making a promise to them that the system would look after them for as long as they needed that assistance.
This change will encourage insurers to seek to offer lump sum payments even earlier that will be, because of the five-year rule, more paltry than they offer now, and could leave workers with no income or assistance to pay for ongoing medical costs once the small sum is used. This bill was formulated without talking to injured workers or their representatives who will tell you how frustrating and soul destroying it is to be unable to work.
This bill introduces a new definition for worker into our workers compensation system making it more complicated than it currently is by adopting the tax office definition of pay-as-you-go taxpayers and cutting out many workers who are employed as contractors or on other arrangements who are currently covered by our workers compensation scheme. By this action you will encourage employers to engage people on contracts that may not be appropriate; that will involve not paying workers compensation premiums and putting families and workers at risk.
This outcome also can represent extreme litigation as injured workers are forced to litigate to get in the future what they are guaranteed to get now: fair coverage and access to workers compensation. The restriction on the ability to claim for non-cash benefits for fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out workers defies logic as it makes a distinction between these workers. For example workers from remote communities or location workers who do not fly-in, fly-out or drive-in, drive out. This is the basis of the reasons the Territory opposition cannot support this bill.
I will also go to stakeholders and their contribution and the research the Territory opposition has completed. I will read into the public record for the government’s attention some of the concerns that have been raised. I will start with the minister replying to a comment in the second reading speech on the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 where the minister said:
The gravity of the changes in this bill raise many concerns within the community. The minister’s statement said this is just a stage of it. We are once again expected to make a decision when we do not know what is coming next and how these two will relate to each other. We have major concerns about the first bill and the minister is telling us to just trust him as there will be more changes captured in the second bill expected to be introduced. This makes for an interesting story. Essentially what stakeholders have told us is to be very aware because this bill we are debating today is only half the story.
I would like the minister to comment on stakeholder concerns about the administration of a fitness certificate for our workers. I have been advised that doctors and others will determine the fitness of an injured worker in future. I advised stakeholders that I would take that to the parliament and ask. In the May 2015 sittings will this be delivered in any detail? The question for the minister is: who would be in the category of ‘others’ other than a medical practitioner?
The concerns raised have been strong and articulate. The first major area relates to the capping of weekly benefits for most claimants to a maximum of five years, with medical and treatment costs to extend 12 months after that date. This is a most significant change in workers compensation and rehabilitation and there has been some strong articulation about that. The first one I would like to share with the minister relates to correspondence from the Law Society of the Northern Territory. A letter to Hon Peter Styles MLA, Minister for Business, dated 24 March 2015 said:
That was signed, ‘Yours sincerely’, by the Chief Executive Officer.
That is an example of a high-level stakeholder who provided the minister with very important advice. It will be interesting to hear the minister’s comments because that advice has not been adhered to in the amendments to the workers compensation bill.
I took points from various stakeholders and asked questions. The issues of shifting of liability from the compensation scheme, cutting off payments after five years, cutting off medical coverage after six years would all put pressure on the public system, including Medicare. Also discussed was that there would be significant pressure put on Centrelink or non-government community service organisations. It will have a resounding impact for many workers after that cut-off period.
A good example to use in this debate is one that was talked about in the community about a childcare worker or nurse who severely injured their back and needed spinal fusion requiring multiple surgeries over many years, but only received the 14%. Under these government amendments their compensation payments would end after five years, with no future medical costs paid a year later. Another is a crane operator who suffers knee injuries and cannot climb a ladder or walk up any kind of mild gradient who is still injured after five years will be cut off.
This suggests the concern in the community that went to a grassroots comment of why the government is deserting the injured worker in favour of these multinational insurance company profits. There does not seem to be a resounding level of support in the community for these changes; there is great concern. The responses have been from a high level through to the grassroots, to workers, to the union movement which is also very concerned.
Another question that has been posed for the minister is about the changes to the definition of ‘worker’. It has changed over the years. It seems to be the government’s agenda to squeeze the payout. What stakeholders were telling me when I was conducting research was it is about working with industry, the workers and constituents about improving workplace culture.
There were interesting anecdotes about the City of Darwin and the small number of people government is dealing with. The numbers can be quoted, but they were small. There was a consensus that ran through the conversations I engaged in that the level of construction has tripled and quadrupled over the years – there is no doubt about that – yet there is no major corresponding reflection in injured workers. As a matter of fact, it looks like workplace culture is holding and the workplace occupational health and safety practices are working.
We have small numbers in the Territory who need to claim compensation and rehabilitation, so why would the Territory government not set that example of being one in solidarity with the workers as opposed to what is now resonating in the community: a government that is favouring the profits of a multinational insurer, or insurers in that case?
This conversation is definitely resonating. It was interesting to talk to workers who spoke of the fair and just negotiations with the CLP government in 1986 for the opportunity to trade off claiming under common law to set up a no-fault scheme. That seems to be a major agreement that is now being backtracked by this current CLP government. People in the community and the workers in the Territory have real concerns about that because their baseline is the protection of the worker and their family should they be injured. They need that safety net that is provided currently, and are very concerned about these amendments which will change that.
For the minister’s information the other interesting comment I heard was about the change in definition of ‘worker’ to that pay-as-you-go taxation status definition. It was discussed that this is far more complex and can lead to far more complex outcomes. Cynically, it could relate to employers in the Territory using this opportunity to not pay workers compensation, to define workers involved in a myriad of different services within their business and industry as not being employees so they would not be covered. They have no common law provision to initiate litigation to deliver for their injuries and rehabilitation. Also, under this definition of pay-as-you-go, I was advised by a number of stakeholders that it could add very significant complexities that could end up in the court system and prove this to be unworkable legislation.
There is a common agreement that we try to stay out of the court system. Under this new definition around the Australian Taxation Office status and injured workers who find themselves not covered through the compensation and rehabilitation scheme we have now, they will be left no choice but to contest this. Essentially I was advised they will be directly contesting the government’s amendments to this new definition that will, once again, be a burden on government, expose poor legislation and be a burden on the injured workers and their families who, without any fair recourse, will revert to the systems I have already talked about, being Medicare, Centrelink and non-government service organisations.
The definition of ‘worker’ is critical in getting that right. I ask the minister for his clear explanation about that because the more complicated arrangement linked to the Australian Taxation Office legislation and systems seems to be a flaw in this legislation. The Territory opposition asks the minister to explain that change.
It is important to stress that many industry groups the Territory opposition spoke to were proud to say workplace claims have dropped in the Northern Territory, including death and disability, while the construction industry’s claims have tripled and quadrupled. This represents a positive change in workplace culture toward prevention of accidents and injury which encourages any government to focus on that while continuing to provide that important safety net for workers and their families.
It is important in this debate to talk about WorkSafe and the changes the CLP government has made to it. Stakeholders called for improved regulation by WorkSafe in industry. They felt the changes the Northern Territory government has made has had an impact on our WorkSafe, and they asked that the government consider the need to look at it. A grassroots approach to looking at regulation is an important part of the improvement of workplace culture and safety.
I have a quote I will outline for the House which came from a number of contributors. It said this legislation seems to be designed to squeeze the payout out and attack the compensation side of the system, which essentially abandons the worker and consequently favours the profits of the big insurers. It is not fair and equitable, it does not provide a safety net for the worker and it will not develop a positive workplace culture in industry into the future.
The other interesting point is the stakeholders and the constituents who contributed to the opposition’s research made a point of how the CLPs agenda seems to favour the profits and the insurer. This legislation definitely disadvantages Territory employers. The amendment says the employers fund the work health scheme. Questions were asked about how this change will make the scheme more affordable. I found that interesting. The minister might like to respond to that question of the shift to the employers funding the scheme, making the scheme more affordable in relation to the package of amendments.
Another point which I find interesting is there is no recognition of psychological impairment in this bill. A number of stakeholders talked about post-traumatic stress syndrome related to ambulance officers or paramedics, and that this new government amendment to the bill does not recognise psychological impairment as a primary impairment. A number of stakeholders said the government is comprised of a number of ex-police officers, and they were very interested in what those ex-police officers would have to say about psychological impairment that relates to on-the-job stress, post-traumatic stress and those issues.
Talking about psychological or psychiatric impairment, the permanent impairment benefit is a lump sum payment where a person suffers permanent impairment as a result of the injury they suffered. A person is assessed according to the American Medical Association guide to the evaluation of permanent impairment. The amendments make the permanent impairment assessment relevant for receiving benefits beyond five years. The AMA guides allow for aggregating different impairments so the final figure represents the full effects of the injury. Psychological or psychiatric impairment caused by having to deal with the effects of a physical injury other than related to a heart attack or stroke will now be excluded from permanent impairment.
A firefighter who suffers burns to their arm will be able to be assessed for all their physical components such as nerve damage, skin damage and scarring. They will be able to claim for psychological injury if they have a post-traumatic stress disorder. They will not be able to claim for a depression illness caused by not being able to play with their kids or the financial ruin and family breakdown that so often goes hand in hand with a workplace injury. This is a very fine line but a very real argument that has come from stakeholders.
There is no logic for creating this artificial distinction to determine access to statutory benefits. It is used in some jurisdictions when determining whether a person has reached the threshold for access to common law damages. Once over the threshold a court assessing damages will readily include it. It is simply discrimination against those who, through no fault of their own, suffer a workplace injury and are psychologically damaged by that injury. I found that to be a very important part of the opposition’s research and component of these amendments which the minister needs to make comment on.
The Territory Labor opposition will not support these amendments. We have consulted widely with a conglomerate of layers, from people who have taken a legal interest in this to the workers, families and constituents. We have consulted with the union movement. I took the opportunity to share with the Northern Territory that letter I read on to the public record from the Law Society to show those real concerns that came from a high-level group of stakeholders. It does not seem to have been acknowledged or reflected in the government’s amendments.
Madam Speaker, this is a very serious bill and we will not support it. We ask that the minister responds to our concerns. Another member of the opposition will speak specifically on behalf of the Territory firefighters the opposition has fought so hard to support over two years. I acknowledge the final commonsense approach from the Country Liberal Party government. Should we be judged worthy in an election and elected as the government of the Northern Territory, we will go further with amending that legislation to provide for those firefighters.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, legislation occasionally comes to parliament where governments do a couple of things at once as this does. It always makes it difficult to know which way to go. I support the changes for the firefighters who have long fought for assistance and this type of legislation before us today. My concerns are with the other part of the legislation. I thank the department for the briefing yesterday.
I will explain the reasons why I probably will not vote on it. If I vote against it I am sending a message to the firefighters that I do not agree with their legislation. If I support it then I do not think I am being fair to myself because I have some concerns which I will raise. This is complex legislation. I received the letter from the Law Society yesterday. Without having adequate time to work through the issues they raised and dissect the clauses of the NT Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act review, I feel I would be speaking without enough background to agree or disagree with some of their comments.
The main concern I have is the issue of the workers who have below the 15% threshold with the cut-off at five years. I need to put my concern into context. Clause 5 of the bill to insert a new section 2 in the act states:
I will start at the last point which is about the cost of workers compensation. I remember debating in this parliament – and I must admit I felt I was debating on my own – the issue the previous government raised in regard to workers compensation for 457 visa workers. Some of that discussion related to the cost of supporting 457 visa workers who have permanent disability. I stand to be corrected, but both sides were concerned the insurance companies might have to foot a large bill if they had to go down that path.
I remember contacting the insurance company QBE three times to ask them how many workers qualified for this classification. They never gave the figures because there was not a big issue; there were not large numbers of people who were totally incapacitated due to an injury on a work site. I question the 18 people per year that is quoted in the second reading speech:
We do not have any figures to back that. I go back to an earlier quote from the second reading:
Any proof?
There is no proof in what I have before me that that is the case. I go back to the legislation that was passed in this House. Members of the parliament were supportive of the insurance companies because they believed insurance companies would cop a big bill. Yet the insurance company quoted in that debate could not show any proof this would cost them any more than it was then.
The other concern I have in relation to this is I am struggling to find examples of people who fit into the category of being disabled – if that is the right word – below 15%. You would hope there would be some jobs that could be found for people with that disability so they could get back to work so they would not need assistance for five years. However if they have assistance for five years, there must be a pretty good reason. Who makes this arbitrary decision, ‘That is it’? If you want to cut the costs why do we not just make it three years, two years and too bad after that?
I cannot find a real-life example of people who are in this situation where that threshold means they need medical assistance and help with their salary. I am in a quandary. Why would you want to cut them off? There must have been a good reason if they have gone this far. I also would like to know the number of people and the cost to the insurance companies.
I will throw in something out of left field. Generally we are turning into the super-safe workforce. We have an industry that deals with lollipop ladies, witches hats and visibility vests. If you go on any mine or construction site you have to go through some instruction on what you should or should not do and wear steel-capped boots and sometimes gloves. We are a society that is very much safety conscious. You are supposed to get a certificate if you fall in a hole more than 1 m deep these days. You can go on a ladder to a certain height then you have to use a lift. You probably need a certificate to get in a lift as well. Are we expecting more and more people to be injured in future because we live in a safety-conscious society?
It is a bit like the firefighters’ legislation. Obviously 20 years ago there was not much safety equipment for firefighters, not to the extent we have today. You would hope the requirements in this legislation to help people who may have contracted serious disease would be less because the safety requirements for firefighters are much higher than they were many years ago.
Is this argument about the cost to insurers a real one? What is it based on? What are the facts? How many people are we dealing with – 18 per year? I am concerned that in this legislation a small group of people under the 15% threshold seem to have been put on the scrap heap because we need to keep costs down. I have not been given evidence to show whether those people can or cannot work.
I agree with the principle behind this legislation, which is return to work. It is good. That is the philosophy behind the South Australian legislation, and I presume that of other states. That is a good, positive change to this legislation. However there are certain things which leave me a little dry, as the economics of this change have overridden the human issues which should come first.
Of course the people who are applying for help need to be tested. There are sections which talk about fraudulent matters where people are claiming when they should not be. Those things should be tested; no doubt about it. If there are genuine people who have a need for this type of compensation why should it be cut off at an arbitrary five years?
My understanding is some other states do it. Maybe they believe the insurance companies as well. Maybe it is a national scheme. Maybe the federal government thinks the insurance companies are under stress. I have not seen the evidence that insurance companies are under that much stress they cannot afford to pay these people. If we are thinking about getting people back to work we should be putting the emphasis on that rather than how to cut their compensation.
During the briefing I raised another issue a person came to see me about pertaining to what is not permitted to be claimed. You cannot claim superannuation. When most of us work, we expect a certain amount of superannuation to go to the super fund which we hope one day to retire on. While on compensation no superannuation is paid into your fund. When you eventually go back to work, you have missed out on superannuation for that period of time. That concerns me because that superannuation is just as important as your wage. You are disadvantaged because of the accident you had. I would rather see superannuation allowed for when working out compensation. It is important that it remains.
This is complex; there is no doubt about it. I thank the government for its briefing. I have been through it a couple of times. I did not read the whole review, but I read the Review of (NT) Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, Summary, which sets out the key points. It recommended that:
I quote again from that summary:
That is too cold. I see that as presuming people do not need help after five years. That is too predetermined. You should take each case on its own circumstances.
The member for Barkly quoted the letter from the Law Society NT which only arrived at 5.15 pm last night. One of the difficult things about this legislation is there are not many people you can go to. I am not saying I do not trust the government when it provides a briefing, but if you want an alternative point of view which may or may not support the government, it is not easy to get it. This is a legal document. It is not that easy for people like me to understand.
When I receive a document from the Law Society NT which raises some of the concerns I have raised, and more, I become concerned. I do not know whether the minister has time to respond to that.
It attached a preliminary report into the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, so I gather it made comment on it. In its comments there are many sections of that review it does not support. How many of those matters which were not supported ended up in the legislation? For instance, the society does not support: on page 25, interpretation of legislation; on page 30, rehabilitation; and on page 32, the return to work programs. There are another 28 items saying, ‘does not support the recommendations’ in that document, which I have highlighted.
I am not saying all the Law Society NT’s serious concerns are correct. The government needs an opportunity to look at what has been written. Government may have another point of view, naturally. I find it difficult to support this legislation when I hear conflicting views. I do not believe I would be fair on this legislation if I decide it is right. That is the reason I support the firefighters section of the act, but I still have questions about the other parts of the act.
Finally, I do not support those two sections of the act. The insurance companies will cry foul, or do they cry wolf? I am unsure which animal it is. They will cry that life is tough. I am not sure it is that tough, because when we had this debate about 457 visa people I had meetings with QBE and asked them to show me the figures that life would be tough and they would not provide them. I reckon there is a bit of money driving this issue when it should be about what is a fair and reasonable compensation for a worker, regardless of the situation or without putting them into a box that says at the end of five years that is it. We need to be a little more flexible in that approach.
Madam Speaker, those are my concerns about the legislation. I thank the minister for bringing it to the parliament today. There are some good things in it but there are also some things I have concerns about.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, sorry, I was lost in thought in another place. The magnificence of the speech by the member for Nelson transported me to a place far away from here which was full of flowers, butterflies and those sorts of things. I am grateful to the member for Nelson; it was a meditational experience.
I will not use my whole half-hour today. I want to point out a couple of things to members in this place. We have to be a little careful about the expectations we try to raise. I will speak more globally about the concept that is under debate today: the presumptive legislation. I point out that we have to be a bit cautious about presumptive legislation, particularly in the expectations of individuals.
People often use the term ‘presumptive legislation’ without understanding where the reference comes from. It comes from legal terms; law is full of presumptions. You will find it both in the criminal law and the civil law. The presumption of innocence is one of the examples where you will demonstrate that there is a presumption about a person who is brought before a court. There are presumptions woven into the statute book and the common law in relation to standards of evidence you have to meet. If you look at tort law you will find it has many presumptions built into it.
Presumptions are constructed in a certain fashion and are, by their definition or the word that is used to describe them, rebuttable. I will give you an example. In the Bail Act, for argument’s sake, there is a presumption in favour of or against bail. That means that the starting point of a court when considering a particular issue is they will presume a certain set of circumstances be correct and continue on that presumption until such time as that presumption is challenged. If there is sufficient evidence to undermine or change the mind of the court and say that the presumption is incorrect then the court can be guided or dissuaded from pursuing the presumption.
This is why we have to be a little careful because presumptive legislation as described in this bill before the House is a series of presumptions of the likelihood of a limited variety of cancers attached to a firefighter who has fought fires, particularly chemical fires, through their working life and have undergone certain training, which is redundant nowadays, where they were exposed to things like smoke from burning vulcanised rubber tyres and that type of thing without proper breathing apparatus. There is no doubt there are carcinogens in all those things . As a parliament – mind you listening to the ALP you could swear they were not in favour of this legislation – we will pass this legislation today, hopefully, which will say that certain types of cancers are presumptive, or presumed by a court to be caused by workplace exposure.
That does not necessarily mean it will automatically follow that people will be paid out. Every case will be decided on its own merits. Every case that comes before a court will be considered and it is quite conceivable that the insurer’s lawyers will start to ask questions around the strength of the presumption I am discussing today.
Let me give you an example. Perhaps a firie is seeking compensation in relation to exposure to certain types of carcinogens but in some other facet in their life they were exposed to those carcinogens in greater quantity. Take something like a lung cancer claim. The firie also, in this instance, for 30 years of dedicated smoking, smoked two packets of cigarettes a day. Conceivably, the insurer’s lawyer would walk into a court in that environment and say, ‘I represent the people who are paying out. This guy has been exposed to various forms of tyre smoke during the period of training but has been a two-packet-a-day smoker for 30 years. We can now establish, without too much effort in this court today that smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer.’ That could well convince a court, depending on any other evidence they receive, that presumption will not be maintained, and the court may find the smoking was, in every likelihood, the source of the cancer and not the fires.
This is why we have to be careful about these legislative instruments because they build expectations. One could be forgiven for thinking, having heard some of the things I have heard in the domain right now, that firies will automatically get paid out the moment this legislation is passed. I hope we have not raised those expectations because I do not know whether or not the insurer will resist some of these claims, despite the fact they now cover the field with a presumption in favour rather than a presumption against. I counsel people to be careful and cautious with that assumption about the presumption.
The second thing I want to touch on very briefly – I have been in and out of the Chamber for various reasons but I heard the member for Barkly talking about the issue of the secondary claim when a claim is made. I want to describe to the House exactly what the intent of the legislative instrument is. If a police officer, for argument’s sake, is shot in the chest and there is some associated stress disorder attendant to that particular incident, then the compensation will cover both the physical and psychological injuries.
However, if a person suffers an injury which incapacitates them for some other physiological reason alone, but lays them up in hospital or in their home and prevents them from going back into the workplace, and that time spent in the home is the source of a psychological injury, then the extension of the compensatory coverage will not extend to that degree. This is something the dissenting judges in Donoghue v Stevenson outlined as a problem when the decision to create tort law was initially described into the English common law. The question in the dissenting judgment – and it is a very interesting judgment to read – was, ‘Where do we take this? How far do we push the liability boundaries?’ That was not at all clear. Lord Atkin and the others who gave the majority judgment in that matter were confident they could describe particular boundaries to what this meant. Time has demonstrated those boundaries had not been well defined. I can well hear the minority judgment in that case ringing in my ears. It is difficult to put boundaries around these things.
The law of tort and the law around insurances, boundaries, proximity and those sorts of things are well established nowadays. There are still greyish areas. The fact is even if you go all the way back to Donoghue v Stevenson and all of the subsequent cases, the argument is about the boundaries: what are the exposures, what are the standards and what is the burden of proof, etcetera?
Those things will continue to be tested when we create new legislative instruments like this because this is all about boundaries. If you overexposure insurance companies to the point where they simply do not work and they are not solvent, then you achieve nothing. If you tighten the boundaries you put in place to the point where there is almost no claim possible, then all you basically have is an extortion racket. Somewhere between those two extremes you have to find the real world.
That is what this legislation attempts to achieve; it describes boundaries. The members might not be happy about some of these boundaries. The members for Nelson and Barkly have described their concerns about some of these boundaries. I also have concerns about boundaries from the other end of the argument. What is the exposure to the insurance companies? Does the exposure go to such a point that we risk an insurance company’s insolvency to such a point it refuses to trade? With our legislative wand, we have created an environment which is so exposed that premiums are either ridiculously high or the insurance companies will refuse to cover. That argument could go on for days. We could fill volumes and textbooks with those arguments. Any number of textbooks have already been filled with those arguments. I will not seek to illuminate the House in any greater detail suffice to say if you are interested enough, read the text books.
Madam Speaker, on balance, this is legislation which finds the right balance between exposure and coverage. For that reason I am grateful the minister has bought this into the House today. I am grateful, I think, for the support of the members opposite. In any instance it is about striking a balance which is fair and equitable, or at least just. For that reason I support the bill before this House.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I had an interest in this when it was first brought on for a couple of reasons. The McLeod family has a strong connection with the Daly, and my son’s partner’s father recently died of cancer. He had served as a firie here for about 25 years.
As you know, Madam Speaker, you and I both had an interest when it was first brought on and pushed for the inclusion of volunteers. I am happy that the volunteers have been included in this legislation. In the second reading speech the minister referred to including volunteers of NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Bushfires NT. Specifically in my area there are 23 in the volunteer bushfire brigade, at least two in NTES and two in FERG units. The volunteer bush firies fall under Bushfires NT and NTES and FERGs fall under police and emergency services. That issue was raised in the meeting we had with them.
One of the issues I would like the minister to address – for information as it has nothing to do with the legislation – is record keeping. In emergency services and FERG, all members who attend an incident are logged. The second reading speech said they must have attended at least 150 exposure events within any five-year period for certain cancers or within 10 years for the remaining cancers.
I want some assurance – more than from the police – that the records kept by NTES, FERG and I presume the volunteer bushfire brigade, are in fact kept by the lead agency. That is one question I have, but is the only issue I found in the legislation which I fully support.
I note the change for people over the age of 67 was also mentioned. Many of the volunteer bushfire brigade people are getting older and the ones on call during the day are usually retired. I am grateful for that.
Madam Speaker, that is all I wanted to say. I am glad this government has backdated this legislation and that volunteers have been added. I wish everyone success in getting it through today.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forward the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill – a long-awaited bill – for debate. I also acknowledge that in cyber space – either tuned in through the live-stream audio or visual – a number of firefighters in Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy and Darwin are watching and listening to this debate.
I thank the member for Barkly for taking the lead for the opposition in this debate as our shadow minister for Business, highlighting the unacceptable delays in bringing this bill forward, and with it some of the significant shortcomings of the bill which mean the Territory’s Labor opposition is unable to support every element of this bill.
As the shadow minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services as well as Public Employment, my contribution to this debate will focus on the section which deals with eligibility of firefighters for compensation for prescribed disease, namely the insertion of section 50A and regulation 5B, which provides for prescribed disease and qualifying periods for firefighters, and regulation 5C, which provides for prescribed number of fires and prescribed firefighting period.
We welcome, as do firefighters and their families and union representatives in United Voice, the news of changes at the 11th hour yesterday, that the government has finally capitulated and agreed to amendments which change the retrospective date for claims from 25 August 2012 – the date of the Territory election – to 4 July 2011, the date when the first presumptive legislation in Australia was enacted by the federal Labor government.
Even better is the sunset clause, a period of three months which will, in the words of yesterday’s media release from the government:
I remind the House that the opposition’s private members’ bill on this subject also included a sunset clause, which was a generous two years.
‘Snogger’ Snowden is one of four Territory firefighters battling cancer who was previously ruled out of eligibility to claim, due to the August 2012 date. These people are now covered. He said to me via an e-mail last night, ‘The rescuers have now been rescued’ – well, to a point anyway.
Henceforth, this sunset clause will have to be known as the ‘Snogger’ clause. ‘Snogger’ Snowden, the OIC of the Nhulunbuy firies, sent me a snippet from yesterday’s Arafura Times, our weekly newspaper, with this article titled, ‘Brave firefighter hopes Govt helps fight for life’.
I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER: I will read a section from it, because it is important:
In the photograph included in the article was a photograph of the member for Katherine who was visiting Nhulunbuy at that time. The article reads:
I thank the member for Katherine who perhaps may have helped influence these amendments which have been presented. I also thank Annie Hess, the journalist and editor who runs the Arafura Times who has been in town for a relatively short while. As a volunteer firefighter she understands how important this issue is.
While the government may like to crow that it has listened to firefighter and community concerns it should be ashamed for failing to listen and act for more than two years. Two years is a long time when you are battling cancer trying to get well, to heal, to recover, to care for your family, care for your kids, work out how on earth you will make ends meet when there is no money coming in, you have used all of your long service and sick leave and the prospect of financial insecurity looms large and frighteningly real in front of you.
It was always a no-brainer that a handful of firies with existing cancers, developed inconveniently and very untimely after the election, would not be eligible to lodge a compensation claim. It was not only a no-brainer, it was incredibly mean spirited.
When in government the opposition made a commitment in the lead-up to the last election to establish presumptive cancer legislation so the Territory’s firefighters who developed certain types of cancers would be taken to be work-related for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. We presented not one but two private members’ bills in August 2013 and a year later in 2014 and both were rejected. I commend the work of the member for Fannie Bay, Michael Gunner, who worked closely with firefighters, consulted widely, researched and presented those two private members’ bills.
Shamefully, those bills were rejected out of hand by two of the five or six Business ministers we have seen during the two-and-a-half years of this chaotic government. I do not think I will ever forget the scene in this Chamber on that evening on Wednesday 28 August 2013 when the member for Fannie Bay introduced a private members’ bill to amend the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Unable to wait until the following General Business Day when he would normally speak in response, the member for Fong Lim launched into a tirade about this all being a political ploy and that the CLP would clearly not be supporting the bill.
The public gallery that evening was full of our hard-working firefighters, some with families, partners and their supporters, as well as their union representatives from United Voice. As the member for Fong Lim ranted those in the public gallery stood and turned their backs. The Business minister then, the member for Fong Lim, chose to turn his back on important legislation and on the needs of firefighters – and they turned their backs on him. I have never witnessed such a scene in this Chamber.
The procedural matters of the House dictate that a year must lapse before legislation can be reintroduced, so we brought our private members’ bill back before the House seeking again bipartisan support from the CLP government, but once again they rejected it. This time, with the Chief Minister as the Business minister, in his churlish seven-minute contribution to an important debate this is what he had to say – I will not read all seven minutes of it, but I will read some excerpts from that speech on 22 October 2014, five months ago:
He rejected the private members’ bill, important and sensible amendments to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which would have supported Territory firefighters with cancer. However, the Chief Minister, like his predecessor in the role, the member for Fong Lim, was not listening or was not interested in listening. He failed to look beyond the political lens to recognise that the bill was brought forward as a response to support firefighters and to address their concerns, as well as union, community and Territorians’ concerns.
As per what I have just read from his contribution on that date, he was absolutely steadfast and not budging from that retrospective date. He has been rolled on that one well and truly, and thank goodness for that. He made an undertaking that we could expect to see something from the CLP by way of cancer legislation for firefighters by the last week in October 2014. There was still nothing for another five months.
In the last sittings last month, with yet another new Business minister, the member for Sanderson, we finally saw movement, but only after continued protests and pressure from firies who held a rally on the steps of parliament on the first sitting day of the year. It was not a political stunt but a public protect organised by firefighters on Tuesday 17 February to highlight once again the need for cancer legislation, and to exercise their democratic right to have their case heard in the hope the CLP was listening.
The following day, on Wednesday 18 February, in response to a question I asked the minister in Question Time, the member for Sanderson responded by saying;
What a shameful response from the minister who now has carriage of this bill. He caused deep offence to firefighters and missed the point entirely. Our firefighters are not interested in political gains. It is not about politics for them, it is about having a fair go and having legislation in place which protects them with a fair pathway to compensation for contracting cancer in the course of doing their work. These are the people who run into danger and into fires when others run away. As one workplace rep said to me on behalf of his colleagues, ‘Our job is to go to somewhere that is unsafe’.
The minister will continue to defend his words but it is too late. He caused great offence, well summed up in a Letter to the Editor on 20 February which I would like to read onto the Parliamentary Record. This letter was published on 20 February 2015 in the Northern Territory News and tagged as the Letter of the Day with the heading ‘CLP fails firies on every level’. It reads:
There was something quite significant about the rally on that day. There was a small gathering of firefighters and yes, members of the Labor opposition who had been invited to attend, along with union members and representatives from United Voice, and representatives from other unions there in solidarity. United Voice has stood shoulder to shoulder with firefighters to move this legislation forward. I am sure the invitation was extended to members opposite in the CLP government.
What was significant and poignant was not just what was said but what was done. Veteran firefighter Jock McLeod read the names of more than two dozen firefighters who had lost their lives to cancer contracted during the line of duty, along with those who are cancer survivors. For each of those names a firefighter’s helmet was placed on the steps of Parliament House by a colleague. It was one of those moments where actions speak louder than words. The image of those helmets will remain with me forever.
Having scribbled out that list of names before coming to the rally, Jock McLeod’s voice faltered as he read them. He told me after he was not sure he could get through the roll call and had not realised until he was on his feet calling out the names of colleagues – all of whom he had known during his 47 years of service – just how emotional and tough the battle has been for this legislation. Of course there was deep sorrow for the loss of good family men taken by a disease which is the scourge of firefighters and a risk they face in their chosen career every day they are on the job.
I thank the Minister for Business for his change of heart on this matter of retrospective claims. He met with United Voice and its firefighter representatives a week or two ago.
I also thank the member for Brennan, as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, who met with United Voice and firefighters as late as yesterday to finally not only listen, but to act on what they had been asking for, for more than two years. It is the right and decent thing to do for these firefighters and their families. I pay credit to you, member for Brennan, having stepped into the space where the Chief Minister swore – indeed in his words guaranteed – he would not allow retrospectivity via the sunset clause to allow these firefighters access to compensation.
I suspect the firefighters, like members of the NT Police Association, would want you to stay on as the Police minister because you are not arrogant; you are decent and have listened and acted. I hope that in your future party wing meetings you might convince the member for Braitling that after the inquiry into police and serious allegations of corruption have been competed he might have cause to think twice about his plan to resume as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
Today the NT News online has an article about what these amendments mean with a photograph of Jock McLeod. Yes, Jock McLeod is eligible for compensation. In fact he was lucky – if you can use that word in the same breath as the word cancer – that the onset of his cancer was within the time frame of post-August 2012.
However, three others are not mentioned in the article. Tommy Lawler, Colin ‘Snogger’ Snowden and Danny McManus have cancer and now at least have some comfort that they will be eligible for compensation with this sunset clause. It will not cure their cancer, or stop the cancer returning for those in remission, but it will provide financial security for them and their families.
In that photo alongside Jock McLeod is Tommy Lawler, another career firefighter. While Tommy’s claim was progressing under his insurer, it comes as a great relief that he is now covered by presumptive legislation. I was able to speak with him this morning and he talked about what he described as the ‘financial potholes’ firefighters like him fall in, and how stressful it has been constantly trying to scramble out of those potholes. He said, ‘The road has been so bumpy – so bumpy. After fighting, fighting, fighting for cover this is a huge win.’
These are some of the most selfless and humble individuals you could hope to meet. In conversations I have had with each of them they expressed the relief this provides them and their families. More importantly – and it is very personal for these four men – this legislation will provide protection for those men and women who are firefighters in the Territory, be it career or volunteer firefighters, who may develop cancer and will not have to fight the battle they have fought to get this legislation through.
Despite changes to the retrospective date for compensation claims, there are elements of this bill as they pertain to firefighters which are not acceptable. Jock McLeod said to me last night, ‘Here was the chance for the CLP to present the best coverage in the country and they blew it. At least it is something. But how can you cut out 25% of the recommended cancers and be happy with it?’
‘Snogger’ Snowden said the same thing, ‘We are only going to see a watered-down legislation that covers 12 out of 16 proposed work-related cancers’.
Danny McManus is a veteran firefighter diagnosed with work-related cancer in 2006 – thankfully one which is on the prescribed list. When I spoke with him, he said he cannot believe that prescribed diseases listed in the private members’ bill have been knocked off the prescribed list in the CLP’s bill, including skin cancer, lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases.
Firefighters are exposed to so many hazards and, as Danny explained, ‘When you have a bushfire burning in this climate, you do not always have the opportunity to wack on sunscreen before going on the job and responding to an emergency’.
While PPE has come some way, breathing in fumes with no idea what hazardous materials might be present in a fire poses and enormous exposure. Firefighters’ lungs are exposed in the line of duty, despite advances in personal protective equipment.
I take this opportunity to thank and salute firefighters who have fought so hard to see this presumptive legislation through. It is still not what is should be, but it is a step further ahead. On behalf of the members of the opposition, it has been a great honour to work with them to try to reach this outcome today.
I apologise to those firefighters in the same breath. Though we tried for more than two years to get this legislation through from the opposition benches, the unwillingness of the CLP to give bipartisan support in rejecting two private members’ bills has been the obstacle. The CLP has also failed to recognise how difficult it has been in the time they have allowed to drag on – more than two years. This time has been painstaking for firefighters and their families affected by cancer. That wait is unforgivable and has been too long for some.
I thank firefighters for their resilience and determination to not back down, and I take great comfort knowing that my family, my constituents and I have such dedicated individuals who serve and protect Territorians so often in the face of grave danger.
I also place on the record my thanks to the dedicated staff of United Voice, the organisers and advocates who have worked tirelessly to support the Territory’s firefighters with this legislation. The CLP government has little time for unions. It has failed to recognise the important role that unions play in representing workers to advocate for a fair go. United Voice was only allowed into negotiations very late in the piece.
In the words of Clarence Darrow, an American labour lawyer, on the contribution of unionism to society:
The principles of unionism and collectivism are simply not in the DNA of conservative politics and the CLP government, where those principles of honesty, integrity, fairness are sadly lacking in too many of its members. It is why we on this side are members of the Labor Party – called so for good reason. We stand for workers, jobs and many other things, but first and foremost we stand to support workers and their families.
While this bill still needs more work it remains inadequate for fair protections for workers. I take this opportunity to remind the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and the Minister for Public Employment that the firefighters’ EBA is now long overdue. It is high time you work with Territory firefighters, listen and engage genuinely with them to recognise the hard and unique work they do, and settle their EBA. It is shameful that their EBA expired in September 2013, 18 months ago.
I can only hope the new Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and the new Minister for Public Employment will be more diligent. As the Minister for Public Employment, I hope the member for Katherine will be a better listener than the former minister, the member for Port Darwin, who failed firefighters in those negotiations and offended them when he described them as ‘self-interested and greedy’.
Member for Katherine, I will endeavour to seek a briefing on progress with the EBA. My last meeting was set up on the fifth floor with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment in February. Unfortunately it was cancelled because it was the day the CLP went into lock-down following the failed coup the night before.
Supporting our firefighters is clearly something that is close to the hearts of Territorians who recognise the incredibly valuable work they do. That is why 26 284 Territorians signed this petition calling for this legislation to be supported which was tabled in this parliament by Michael Gunner, the member for Fannie Bay, on 28 August 2013. More than two-and-a-half years down the track we finally see this legislation here – not entirely what we were hoping to see, but it is a step in the right direction.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude my contribution by thanking the current Business minister for bringing this bill before the House. However, as I said, it simply does not go far enough. On those grounds I and my opposition colleagues advise we cannot support this bill.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this afternoon I talk on parts of this legislation as it pertains to firefighters, both professional fully paid and volunteer fire officers. I will not comment on issues that have been raised by the crossbenchers or the member for Nelson.
Labor was in power for 11 years and if it wished to bring in similar legislation, had ample opportunity to do so. The other states of Australia have introduced legislation and talked about it for many years. The House of Representatives passed legislation in 2011. There has been an enormous number of studies in Canada, America and Sweden in regard to this matter, so it is not that there has not been information material around.
It is not one fire that kills an officer or volunteer fire officer, it is dozens of fires. For a firefighter, whether they be a paid or volunteer professional, the problem of dying as a result of an occupational disease is much greater than the chance of dying at a fire scene. A death is a death. Compensation should be no different whether that person has faced one fire or 300 fires, as is often the case with people who contract various diseases.
As I mentioned, this issue of environmental cacogenic problems has been around for years – many decades. The first study linking cancer and occupation was carried out by a London surgeon called Dr Percivall Pott in 1775. His studies linked the occupation of chimney sweeping to testicular cancer. He studied and worked with the people of the time. The results of his studies showed there was a direct link between those whose work involved soot and the resulting cancer. He published his findings and others have picked up on his studies. The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH, are still relevant today and are produced in every fire.
Another key study done in 1998 – in more modern times – was at Mt Sinai Hospital in New York. That study was undertaken over a number of decades and involved many fire officers. What were the agents the fire officers were exposed to that were causing their cancers? The big word that came out of that study was ‘plastics’.
There are 70 000 synthetic chemicals in a typical household. There is more exposure now than ever before and there is an increased chance of cancer. There are more plastics, more chemicals and composition of chemicals today than ever before. There are more deadly carcinogens. The combining of chemicals has also presented a problem for those who face fires in structures or any other place.
The carcinogens that fire officers faced in years gone by, and still face today, include PAH, benzene, arsenic, asbestos, vinyl chloride, radon, radium, soot – boring old soot – tar, oil and formaldehyde just to name some of them. The list is much longer than that.
There was a study done in Cincinnati in Ohio by LeMasters and Lockey in 2007. Again, it was a large study. The exercise was the largest firefighter cancer study done in living memory with 110 000 full-time fire officers from 32 studies. As a result of the studies there was a direct correlation between chemical exposure to fire and the risk of cancer. That study showed what had not been considered before: that not only was it about the inhalation of chemicals and substances, but also the absorption through skin and other ways.
There have been many studies, both past and present, leading to legislation similar to what we are discussing today. Canada has legislated – not all their provinces, but most of them – as have many USA states, Sweden and France, to name a few.
With the increase in chemicals in our society and the increased prevalence of plastics, the increase in personal protection equipment has been good. However many of these studies are now showing that personal protection equipment is not keeping up with the change in the number of chemicals, plastics and substances that confront fire officers when they attend a fire, whether it be in a house a car, a shed or anywhere else.
As I mentioned, Australia passed legislation on 3 November 2011 and many of the other states have also debated and passed similar legislation. Some is similar to ours, some is not. Our legislation, as I understand, is the closest to the Tasmanian legislation, given the structure of the full-time and volunteer professional officers is very similar.
I thank the minister and the department of Work Health, as I think the members for Daly and Nelson referenced. All three of us attended a briefing some months ago in regard to this legislation as it pertained to the professional fire officers at the time, and questioned why the volunteers could not be covered. The advice we received at that meeting was there was no reason why they should not and could not be covered because they were covered in Tasmania. That was heartening to us because as the member for Daly said, he has many bush fire brigades in his electorate, as I have.
One of the key studies that has been undertaken in Australia very recently is the landmark study by medical researchers of the Monash University, funded by the participating member agencies of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council, or AFESAC, which includes the NT. They carried out a national retrospective study on the incidence of firefighter mortality cancer which was prompted in part by many overseas studies identifying excesses of several types of cancers in firefighters.
There was an advisory committee consisting of representatives of different organisations including those from the Northern Territory Fire Service: Mick Ayer, Bruce Byatt and David Pettit. I am not sure who is on the committee now, if it still exists, because two of those people have left the Territory.
There was a technical committee attached to this study the members of which were experts from Canada in particular – given they had done much more work than us – and Australia. It is a good report and I recommend anyone who has an interest in this to get a copy. I have read some of it. In a very general and quick summary they found with most types of cancer, the potential and prevalence was elevated in fire officers because of the work they do. It is a comprehensive study. Their methodology is very sound and it is very thorough.
I recall the minister saying volunteers are now included as well as professional paid officers. In regard to the legislation before us, if a firefighter is diagnosed with one of the 12 cancers identified in the bill and serves as a firefighter for the relevant qualifying period it will be presumed the cancer is an occupational disease and is therefore compensable. There should not be any question about that. The evidence from studies around the world, going back to Percival Potts, tells us there is a direct link and that should not be questioned anymore.
With the volunteers now included, an additional requirement is proposed which is that the person must have attended 150 exposure events within any five-year period for brain cancer and leukaemia, and 10 years for any of the remaining 10 cancers. As bizarre as it sounds they can qualify – I hope they do not. This requirement ensures the presumption only applies to volunteers who have had some measurable exposure to the hazards of fire.
Minister, what is the definition of an exposure event? I think I know what it is, but I would like to know how it is defined in the legislation. Is it a grass fire, a structural fire or do they have to fight a car fire? Many people mistakenly think volunteer fire people just attend grass fires. They attend many grass fires, but that is not all they do. Sometimes they attend structural fires in support of the NT Fire Service and sometimes they are the first people to attend a car fire. I would like to know exactly what the 150 exposure events are and how that will work within the legislation.
Also, how will the NT Fire Service have its volunteer brigades document these activities? How will the Bushfire Council NT, through its volunteer brigades, document what qualifies as 150 exposures? Do they have to be at a fire for half-an-hour or an hour. and will it be a grass or a structural fire? I am not quite sure. The reason I am asking is I want to explain to my volunteer brigades exactly so they can get it clear in their minds what is involved. The volunteers in my electorate I have spoken about before are, under the NT Fire Service, the Humpty Doo brigade, the Koolpinyah brigade and the Virginia/Bees Creek brigade, and under the Bushfires Council NT the Elizabeth Valley brigade and the Lambells Lagoon brigade.
Last Sunday I was at Koolpinyah brigade’s annual general meeting. This Sunday the Elizabeth Valley bushfire council people are having their annual general meeting which I will be attending. It will be good to give them something more definite on this. I have already advised them this legislation is coming up. I sent them the minister’s media release and some other documents. Feedback to date is they say it is good legislation, but I want to follow up with some very specific details. Is there someone in the fire services department who will be managing this? Is there someone on the Bushfires Council NT who will be managing it?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you, the minister, and the government for finally bringing this to fruition. Like any new legislation, it might have some teething issues. I am interested in how the government, through the NT Fire Service and the Bushfires Council NT will talk to the brigades about the new legislation. I would like to understand the processes for consultation so they understand exactly what is involved because it is very important, especially at this time of year leading into the fire season.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a fair bit to get through, but it is the intention of government to take this to the committee stage because there are some amendments which need to be put through.
I thank all of those people who have provided input into this legislation today and spoken about it before. I also thank those who have been involved in helping government and the minister ensure we covered as many things as possible when designing this legislation. From my understanding of this legislation compared to other jurisdictions, we will have the most generous scheme of all jurisdictions.
Listening to today’s debate, it was unfortunate that some members in this House wanted to provide political comment and not deal with the law. Some of the commentary was social in nature rather than dealing with the law and concentrating on the benefits of this legislation. It will make it easier for firefighters in the Northern Territory.
I recall one question the member for Goyder asked about 150 events. My advice is it is considered an event when a firefighter attends a fire which could be simply back burning, controlled or not. That is how that is determined.
I have a bit to get through to wrap up before we move to the committee stage, but I note I will not have time ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, we will be back at 9 pm. Do not worry about that, we will be here.
I am disappointed that the opposition had an opportunity to support this legislation and make a difference. They talked a lot about supporting our firefighters, yet they are not, from what I heard earlier, supporting this legislation. I found that astounding.
This legislation has taken some time but there have been many discussions and much consultation. I take my hat off to people like Tommy Lawler and the firefighters’ union. They have provided constructive feedback on this legislation, which is why it has taken time to construct. The opposition wanted to play politics with this today and it appears they want to continue to play.
Let us look at 4 July 2011, when the then Labor federal government introduced this legislation. They had a full 12 months in government but chose to use it as a political football in the lead-up to the last election. They are all about politics, not about what is right for firefighters.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. You can conclude your remarks when we return to Government Business. Being 5.30 pm it is now time for General Business.
Debate suspended.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Legislative Assembly calls on the Northern Territory government to immediately establish an interagency task force of Police, Health and Children and Families to report in six weeks on actions that can be taken to tackle the ice epidemic, and that this Legislative Assembly calls on the Northern Territory government to incorporate an ice room in the existing emergency department construction at Royal Darwin Hospital.
We have already had some debate in this Chamber today in regard to the establishment of a select parliamentary committee to investigate and report on actions in relation to tackling ice. I invited the government to genuinely consider bipartisan support for this motion which is kept simple in its terms. There is no political rhetoric or accusation in its terms. It is very clearly a motion that seeks to establish an interagency task force of the relevant agencies they have been identified as key stakeholders in the terms of reference contained in the select parliamentary committee, and the establishment of the ice room at Royal Darwin Hospital. I hope the spirit in which this motion was presented last sittings is picked up and the government can see its way to being bipartisan in its responses today, just as we have welcomed the parliamentary select committee.
On 18 February this year I called on the CLP government to respond to growing community concern over the epidemic of methamphetamine – ice – abuse in the Territory. I sought the immediate establishment of an ice room at Royal Darwin Hospital, given that there is a construction project under way now to expand the emergency department. I also sought the establishment of this interagency task force of Police, Health and the Department of Children and Families and urgent action to tackle this scourge.
It may be a pure coincidence of timing that on the day we are debating this motion in the Chamber – which has sat on the books since last sittings – the government saw fit to establish a parliamentary committee. Except for the coincidence in timing, it is great if we can have a truly bipartisan day today.
Let the experts across these three agencies be brought together with a specific task of providing advice to the CLP government on the actions that can be taken to tackle the scourge of ice. As I said earlier today, when we were debating and supporting the establishment of the parliamentary committee, it does not need to be an either/or; both can work together in tandem. In fact, an interagency task force would be well placed to provide the expert advice to the parliamentary committee.
In the meantime, we could identify real action that can be taken between now and September that can meaningfully help people in the Territory deal with the ice scourge. Why not let that happen? Why would you say things ought to remain on hold?
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an opportunity for the CLP government to show some maturity and bipartisan support for a motion which is put forward in goodwill and good faith. I look forward to the response.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I respond to the Leader of the Opposition’s call in relation to approaching this in a bipartisan fashion. I will not be critical of the Opposition Leader; I will take her at face value on this topic. That does not automatically mean I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, but I will treat her with all deference and courtesy because I genuinely believe that as a representative of the people of the Northern Territory in this instance she is genuinely trying to make an impact and a change.
As a consequence of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion, I have spoken to the minister for Police about this matter. We have discussed how we step through this process. The minister for Police and I believe there is time to get those three CEOs together. Whether or not we create a task force per se, let us get some advice from them. Any reasonable government would say to the experts in the field, ‘Let us see what your expertise says’. I can advise the Leader of the Opposition that I have told my Department of Health and my department of Child Protection to get together and start talking about these issues. In fact, we are already looking at some things we might be able to do.
I also heard the Leader of the Opposition’s call in relation to what she terms the ‘ice room’. As I said this morning, I am fully aware of the presentations at the hospital of people who present with psychoses across a raft of areas. Whilst I know the politics of calling it an ice room, I would reserve the room for psychotic episodes rather than ice-induced psychotic episodes, otherwise you prevent the room being used for other purposes. I know it sounds like semantics. However, I am not deaf to her calls.
I visited Cowdy Ward and spoke to the nurses there. I have also, on a number of occasions, been to accident and emergency.
I correct the record on one thing. This morning the Leader of the Opposition said she was under the impression there were two separate powers operating in two different places in the hospital. This is not so. If you invoke the operation of the Mental Health Act …
Ms Lawrie: No, it is without the operation of the Mental Health Act.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, it can be invoked anywhere in the hospital, with those powers of restraint. If there is some procedural problem I am happy to look at that, but I was not aware of different power existing in different parts of the hospital. If there is then that is a shortcoming in the system, and I would be the first to respond. A health practitioner may exercise their powers under the Mental Health Act and apply reasonable restraints for people having a psychotic episode ...
Ms Lawrie: Not the Mental Health Act.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry?
Ms Lawrie: It is not under the Mental Health Act, where the issue is.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I look forward to some correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition. I will keep a balanced ear to the comments she is making, and will be happy to embrace any system improvements.
There are rooms in the Cowdy Ward which are capable of dealing with people with psychotic episodes. However, as I said this morning, it is the very nature of the randomness of timing when people come in. Some days and weeks you will get none, then you will have a clump of three or four and then your resources will be pushed in Cowdy Ward. People who present with some sort of ice-derived psychotic episode are usually hallmarked by three things: paranoia, anger and strength. Supressing somebody having a psychotic episode from this particular drug creates a triumvirate of bad behaviour, which poses a risk to staff.
I try to minimise the risk to staff at all times. It cannot always be done. You cannot always put a shield around the staff to the point where they are always protected. Because of their nature, staff will take risks. Frankly, I will not say in these circumstances I encourage it, but I understand why people step up and help.
My response to this is that I, hopefully with the acquiescence of the minister for Police, want to get those CEOs together. I give you a commitment that we will definitely look at the issues you have raised in relation to the security of how people move through the hospital to see if there is a requirement for a restructure. So you have been heard.
I am genuinely not being flippant or dismissive. I will not go so far as to say we have met the terms of this motion or that we would create an ice room per se. I will take the advice, and if it turns out we need to do some more work in Cowdy Ward and we have some protocols to get people from accident and emergency to Cowdy Ward very quickly – if that is what the experts want operationally – then that is fine. If there is room at accident and emergency for something like you are describing, and it is necessary, I can be convinced. But I am waiting for some advice from the department.
I am genuinely not ignorant of what you are saying, and I do not want to be seen to be contrary for the sake of contrariness. I am saying that this is a real problem we acknowledged today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in regard to this motion, we can do a couple of things. Perhaps we can adjourn it. Alternatively, I would not support the motion in its current form, but I can guarantee that at some point in the future I will report back on what steps we are taking as a government. In fact, I suspect we will probably give that evidence to the parliamentary committee that was created today.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have heard both speakers. I have some concerns. I support, in general, the concept of what the Leader for the Opposition is trying to do. I will explain the issues I have. One is over a word and the other is how the second section is phrased.
I will go to the second part first. It says:
I have been trying to prepare for this debate for quite a while and have been making sure I get my facts straight because there is nothing worse than not knowing what you are talking about.
I had discussions with staff at Royal Darwin Hospital. I got permission to talk to one of the people involved. I have some of the figures in relation to what happens at present. The indication is we do not need an ice room at the moment. That is not to say we should not look at it, but I was given the number of people being admitted who they know are affected by ice. The number of people going there is an issue in itself, but we need to investigate how we can improve the figures I was given of somewhere between one and three people per month. One of the issues in relation to that is data is not routinely collected, so that area has to be improved.
They have a plain room they call the Oleander Room where there is nothing to disturb a patient. That is where they put an aggravated patient who could cause problems so they can calm them down and they can be observed by the staff. Hopefully they will calm down.
There is also the Resus Room. I presume that is the resuscitation room. Two of these large rooms are used. They put people in there who may have heart problems, because ice is a dangerous drug and can cause other ill-effects. It is a very large space in which patients can be managed and watched. The information I was given is these patients can have difficulty with palpitations and those types of things.
The other advice I received was if someone comes in they like to de-escalate them as soon as possible. They calm them down. So options exist at the hospital. I am not saying we do not need an ice room, but the information I was given today is there are sufficient appropriate rooms at the hospital at present to deal with people who come into the emergency department suffering from the effects of ice.
If we are not routinely collecting the data are we planning for the future? If there are more people than we know about, do we need to consider whether we need an ice room in the future?
I understand where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from, but that is why I asked the staff at Royal Darwin Hospital about the present situation. That is the information I received today.
It is good if we can get a task force, as the member for Port Darwin said. We could do that now. Some of this debate has changed. When I was collecting this information I did not know there would be a select committee, which has made things good in one way. I thank the opposition for raising this question because it has brought this on. The member for Blain said he has been pushing this for a while, but this motion might have caused the government to do something, otherwise it may have sat for longer. I appreciate that the Opposition Leader has proposed this.
It is interesting that she used the word ‘epidemic’. I do not think I have all the documents here, but there are a few other terms you can use. ‘Epidemic’ is a debatable term. It can send the message out to people that we are surrounded by people affected by ice. I mentioned before an article from a magazine titled, ‘Ice Epidemic: Fact or Fiction?’ That is part of the reason I spoke to people at Amity and Banyan House. I had some good conversations and I thank both of those organisations. Sometimes, as an Independent, I ring and ask if I can get a briefing. The table was full of staff, and people gave up their time to give me some indication of what they do and the complications they have in their lives, dealing with people with all sorts of drug addictions. I thank Amity and Banyan House for the time they gave me. It does not make me an expert but it gave me a good understanding of what is happening.
Generally speaking males are affected more so than females. That is not to say ice is good for anyone, regardless of gender. One thing the committee will look at is that it appears to be in certain Indigenous homelands. Hopefully we can cut it off before it gets any worse. I will not mention those homelands and towns at the moment; they will probably be raised during the committee hearings.
Another issue which was raised is when people add alcohol to their system they are difficult to control. As staff said, there is no treatment for it. I suppose the only treatment is detox in the sense that you have to withdraw from it. My understanding is it stays in the system for about 72 hours. Someone said it was four times better than the feeling you get from cocaine and diminishes over time, then people go for a higher amount and it gets worse. It is surprising that there are a reasonable number of older people, somewhere in the 25 to 35 range, who use it. It is a major factor in violent and verbal attacks on and threats to people.
Users cannot empathise with people, their cognitive controls disappear and they think they are bigger than Ben Hur and no one can talk any sense into them. They lose that community connection and the problems go on. The poem the member for Brennan quoted today summed up all of the issues in relation to this matter.
Banyan House is residential, so it provides an opportunity for people to stay there and get treatment over a longer term. What concerns me is the cuts to funding, especially for Amity. I do not know about Banyan House. I acquired the figures and asked them how much they were funded. Banyan House gets 75% from NT, 25% from the federal government and that runs out at the end of June. If they are not topped up by then, unfortunately some of the services Banyan House provides will be affected. My understanding is Amity will also be affected. I do not have the amounts here.
There is something we could do – and that is what this debate it is about today – before the committee provides its recommendations. I ask the government to please talk to the federal government about restoring the funding for those groups.
We have major problems. I went to Salvatore’s for dinner at 8 pm last night and some people working in this building went for dinner also. They were assisting a poor woman who had been bashed. She was an Aboriginal woman, obviously drunk, who had been bashed and was bleeding. They assisted and called an ambulance for her. But there were a large number of people in Smith Street and Knuckey Street last night who were blind.
We have major problems with drugs, not just ice. To take away the funding from some of the people and the good groups we have in the Territory who understand Territory people we need to help work through these ongoing problems associated with drug addiction, is a backward step.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I plead with the government to support this in general because we want to support the gist of what the opposition is asking for: that we need to do something quickly. The ice room we can argue the toss over. We need the Minister for Health, and maybe the minister for Police because this is an issue of law and order as well, to ask the government to ensure funding continues for these important groups. That would be a positive step that might come out of this debate today. I do not know if anyone from the government will talk on this, but if they would at least take up that issue and find out whether we can get funding that would be something positive out of tonight’s debate.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion on the ice epidemic brought to the House by the Leader of the Opposition.
I will start by reflecting on the comments by the member for Nelson about funding. That is an important point that has been made a few times over the last couple of days in parliament, particularly about recent cuts under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. My colleagues on this side of the House have been asking for more advocacy on behalf of our local services which are losing funding. Many of them are doing incredibly important work around these sorts of issues and substance misuse more generally. We need to get behind them as they have proven their worth and that they are effective. They are having to scope down what they are able to do in our community as a result of these funding cuts. I ask that when we are discussing this issue we also look at advocating for these services which are losing out because this will have an impact on the increase of ice use we are seeing.
There has been much discussion in the Chamber today about the physical effects of the drug known as ice and the health and social impacts that ice is currently having on our community. It has complicated the debate a little that we have debated this twice today. It is positive that we have established the parliamentary inquiry. As I mentioned earlier I do not think it has to be either/or but there needs to be immediate action. There are things we can do now and there is evidence and expertise available now. Communities have come together multiple times on this issue, more times than we have, and they already have solutions and ideas to offer. There is a sense of urgency about this, but also the need for us to consider the long game, the long term and how we address this issue.
It is clear from the debate that occurred in the House today that through discussions members have been part of across the Northern Territory, there is a consensus in our community that action on this issue is timely. I appreciate the sense of bipartisan support in debates today. It makes a nice change and the community will appreciate that mature approach to this issue as well.
The community has been crying out for action on this issue for some time and we have heard the pleas. In February this year the motion was raised in parliament with a call for immediate action to stem the problem of ice and the associated harms that are spreading through our community.
I tweeted earlier some of our discussion about parliamentary inquiry establishment and somebody tweeted me back saying, ‘That is great, we actually need to move quickly and we need some immediate action’. That is supporting everything that has been said today.
The work of the established select committee will be so important, with stakeholder and community consultations over coming months. It is a privilege to be part of this committee. I hope it will produce results that will see positive change across the Northern Territory.
As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition and others this morning, there is already a wealth of studies, reports and implemented actions in other jurisdictions we can draw from, and more importantly, experts and those with life experience of these issues in the Territory, who have been talking about this for some time. It presents a solid evidence base from which we can start taking action to reduce the harms of ice, and hopefully other drugs as well.
The two solutions that have been identified and could be implemented immediately are the interagency task force and the establishment of an ice room at Royal Darwin Hospital, to be taken into account in infrastructure planning. There is no reason why an interagency task force could not be established now with relevant representatives from the various frameworks and organisations that have been referred to here today, including Health, Justice and Children and Families.
I appreciated the member for Port Darwin’s comments about the conversations already initiated with CEOs of those departments. I am looking forward to hearing the outcomes of those. It would be great to get some time frames of when they might occur and when we might hear about the outcomes. It is a positive step forward. Many positive actions have come out of the discussions today.
I suggest that an interagency task force would be complementary to the outcomes we all hope to achieve. We can create a strong plan of action that is sustainable, far reaching and has longevity. We can take action now to stop the impact of the use of ice from growing while we are doing that work.
Those on the ground, including family members, are telling members of this Chamber about their experiences and what we can do to support them. I hope others support this motion as I do. The implications of taking immediate action are positive in providing support to those who work on the front line. This is about supporting those in our community who are dealing with these issues now and will be dealing with them for the next six months while we continue to look at the best approaches over the long term. They are working with people who are often in desperate places and are providing the support needed to our families and communities who are calling out for it.
This is a motion that has been brought forward to support those who are supporting our communities and families who need it the most. The motion shows our support and value of those experts who can be working in collaboration now. It works alongside the inquiry established by parliament today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion to the House and note that her action appears to have prompted a more fulsome response to the community concern about the growing ice problem both nationally and in the Northern Territory.
We are talking about ice, and the disgraceful effects of crystal methamphetamine. I note the National Crime Commission released a report today that includes the worrying fact that ice is now the third most commonly used illicit drug in Australia nationally, following cannabis and MDMA. That report also noted that ice is highly addictive and used more often and for longer periods than any other drug. It is concerning because the use of this drug has been shown to increase the risk of psychosis and mental illness as well as aggressive and violent behaviour.
In December last year NT Police Superintendent Fuller said of ice users:
While we appreciate the establishment of the select committee with a report required in September, we still call for the establishment of an interagency task force of Police, Health and Children and Families to report in six weeks on the actions taken to tackle the ice epidemic, and have immediate action to incorporate the establishment of an ice treatment room as part of the scheduled improvements to the Royal Darwin Hospital accident and emergency department.
We have called for that because there is a need for immediate action, as well as deeper consideration of issues and long-term actions by the select committee. We have called for that action because that is what people in our community are calling for – action. People in our community have to deal with this very real problem right now, every day. They want to know that government is focused on this problem and taking action right now. Staff at Royal Darwin Hospital need access to a safe treatment room for ice patients now. Police need to see evidence that the government is working on holistic responses, not just relying on police action and treatment of users and victims at our hospitals. NGO service providers and families want evidence that the government has a plan for this problem and is not just relying on the already overworked NGO sector and families themselves to deal with this difficult problem.
I am especially concerned about the Indigenous families grappling with the impact of this new, insidious drug. Families in Darwin are looking to government for leadership in tackling this head-on as has been shown by other governments. Outside of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and our other larger regional centres, people want to know that the government, not just the police, are on the job working to make sure the tentacles of this national epidemic do not reach their bush communities.
This is a real concern, as reflected in the National Crime Commission report released today. It specifically mentioned the rapid growth of the methamphetamine problem across cities and regional and remote communities. In particular, the report touched on the vulnerability of rural and remote areas which have not previously been exploited by the commercial and criminal suppliers of methamphetamine. There is a problem right here, right now.
The most recent public NT Drug Trends report, in 2013, stated its concern about the increased availability and use of crystal methamphetamine in the Northern Territory. It was concerned the market had become more established in the Northern Territory. The establishment of a new market, a bush market, needs to be addressed right now before it becomes better established.
In November last year The Australian newspaper reported the findings of another NT report on alcohol and other drugs not yet publicly released. It said there is direct evidence of injecting drug use in Borroloola. Health centres are concerned about increasing numbers of clients presenting who had used or been exposed to ice in Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin and Nhulunbuy. Police have told us non-Aboriginal staff in some of our larger remote towns are also using synthetic drugs. There is evidence locals are experimenting with these new drugs, both in town and out bush, when they are available.
Wendy Morton from NTCOSS has told us that in the Top End NGOs are seeing a 100% increase in people presenting with problems related to ice. Chris Franck from Banyan House has told us the number of people being treated for ice addiction has doubled over the last year. Superintendent Tony Fuller has told Territorians police have seized three to four times the amount of ice than in the comparable period last year. This is deeply concerning. Bernie Dwyer from Amity has told us, ‘The tide is rising, we do not know how high it will get. But we also need to look at prevention. How do we actually provide information to the community and to people who may be considering using particular drugs?’
I recently read Victoria’s Ice Action Plan which has been released, and I want to comment on that. The six stages are: Helping Families; Supporting Frontline Workers; More Support, Where It’s Needed; Prevention is Better than a Cure; Reducing Supply on Our Streets; and Safer, Stronger Communities. It is a great document which I am sure the committee will look at in their meetings.
It is important that we make sure we include working with employers and the union movement in relation to fly-in fly-out workers and their access to ice.
Last month the Chief Minister told us that prevalence has not been seen in the NT, but there is some evidence. Then he said he would ask for another report. In June last year the NT News highlighted the growing threat and impacts of ice in the NT community.
We on this side have heard the call from ordinary Territorians. We need to head off this ice epidemic. We need an interagency task force to provide a focus and target a plan. We need urgent action and a report back on what can be done in six weeks. We need to give confidence to Territory families and frontline workers that we are focused on this threat, the real and present danger of ice, and the risk of harm to our kids and families. We need action and responses targeting prevention, treatment and harm reduction, including harm to families and the community through ice-related criminal activity.
Superintendent Tony Fuller also said in January this year about ice:
We have called for immediate action. We welcome the select committee which has now been established, but we should still establish an immediate interagency task force as called for by the Leader of the Opposition to develop immediate responses. We have called for that action because it is what people in our community want. People in our community have to deal with the problem right now. They want to know the government is focused on this problem and taking action right now. Staff at Royal Darwin Hospital need access to a safe treatment room for ice patients now.
I welcome the announcement by the Chief Minister and urge his government to build an ice treatment room at RDH and develop a community education program on the effects of ice and the pain it causes families and the community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I guess I will get a nod or a shake of the head.
Mr Elferink: We will not support the motion in its current form, but I guarantee I will get back to you on a way forward.
Ms LAWRIE: Sure. Given the advice from the Leader of Government Business who also holds the important portfolios of Health and Children and Families, I suggest it without the prescriptive ice room you want to seek further advice on. Would you support it with an amendment to just the interagency task force, which is essentially three agencies working together? Interagency task forces do not require the CEs, they are often the delegates of CEs, who are specialists …
Mr Elferink: Oh yes, whatever they think is fair.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, of course, it is their choice.
If we drop the specific ice room, you would not have an issue with the interagency task force? Then we can support it.
That is not a ruse or political game play, it is simply just trying to get on with some experts being able to advise you and other ministers between now and September on what I describe as the low-hanging fruit. What are some of the easy, simple rubber-hit-the-road solutions that can be done within the agency budgets that could meaningfully help Territorians?
Mr Elferink: We are in the position where we are negotiating this on the floor. My suggestion would be perhaps we can adjourn this, have a conversation about it, and come back when we next sit. We can work out some words that this motion can be amended to. If you want to adjourn it until some other point we can do that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, Leader of the Opposition please.
Mr Elferink: Just a suggestion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, Attorney-General, but the member speaking cannot adjourn it.
Ms LAWRIE: I will not bother adjourning it in the sense that I am hearing the intention of support and spirit from the Minister for Health and Minister for Children and Families of my call for the interagency task force to be established and get on with whatever early actions could be taken in those key portfolio areas across government.
The experts know and they could get on with some of the quick, easier, more obvious actions to take on the ice surge whilst the select committee is getting on with its job. In the spirit of the conversation we have had in the debate, I thank you, Minister for Health and Minister for Children and Families for that. I hope the minister for Police, who has not participated in the debate, will work with you in ensuring that all-important police arm of the interagency task force is at the table.
That being said, we know the motion will be defeated. We will not be dividing because this is not about politics. We had originally intended to divide, prior to the government coming to the party with the select parliamentary committee.
I appreciate that there will be a true focus on the needs of Territorians. Many things bring us to being in this Chamber and the way we want to work with and be representatives of our communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is very near and dear to my heart. I sincerely thank the government for picking it up and taking it on. Many families I know well are affected by a relative who has sadly and tragically been captured in the grip of ice addiction. I know my friends who work in Police, Health, Children and Families and in the Alcohol and Other Drug rehabilitation sectors are all heartened by this focus. Thank you for that. I recognise the motion will be lost, but we have the good support of the Leader of Government Business in the interagency task force and a commitment to look at the establishment of a dedicated room at Royal Darwin Hospital, so thank you.
Motion negatived.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Assembly recognises the community is calling on the CLP government to listen and rule out the development of a man-made island in our harbour.
The proposal for Nightcliff island has caused a large degree of angst in my electorate in the suburbs of Nightcliff, Coconut Grove and Rapid Creek and across the broader Darwin community. The lease issued by the Northern Territory government of over 98 ha in Darwin Harbour off the coast of Coconut Grove and Nightcliff has caused angst amongst our community. The proposed project has the potential to have a significant impact on the environment and the amenity of Nightcliff, Coconut Grove and the broader Darwin community.
Residents are concerned the government has kept them in the dark. Again I come to the House with a number of questions for the government which issued the lease. What is happening with the proposed development? I urge the minister responsible to come into the House tonight and let our community know what exactly is happening.
The people of the Northern Territory and the residents of Nightcliff and Coconut Grove need a straight answer. The community has been left in the dark throughout this whole process and invitations to discuss the proposal and the government’s role in the granting of the lease have not been accepted to date.
People are extremely concerned and are ready to jump to action. When Nightcliff residents became aware about a secret lease off their coast for an island development, there was widespread concern and apprehension about the impact of the proposal. These apprehensions were expressed loudly and clearly at the meeting of residents and concerned citizens at the Nightcliff Sports Club last year.
While not exhaustive, the legitimate community concerns raised at that meeting included: the development proposal is not consistent with the existing zoning; residential development is not compatible with existing biodiversity; it is an exceptional development proposal and may not go through the normal planning process; the project is a surge zone and could redirect water into current residential areas; there could be adverse impacts on Indigenous values and culture; adverse environmental impact on the Ludmilla Creek and Ludmilla Bay areas; the biodiversity implications for turtles and dugong as well as other marine life; there is no comprehensive social and environmental assessment of the proposal; and the proposal is not included on the draft Darwin Land Use Plan which was released at Christmas time last year with little consultation.
We need a feasibility study to inform discussion on whether we want this kind of development. This proposal is not consistent with heritage, recreation or ecological values. There is no traffic management plan or assessment strategy and no social impact.
In January we saw another flurry of activity and questions from residents who looked at planning maps for another rezoning and noticed an area on the map near the proposed Nightcliff island which had been given a lot number. I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Ms FYLES: In January this year, concerned Darwin residents – not just from the Nightcliff, Rapid Creek, Coconut Grove area – were looking at another planning notice and came across what appears to be a balloon-shaped lot in the sea off Nightcliff labelled No 7265, which I have just tabled. The community groups looked at similar maps for notices covering the area where this had not appeared. They were most concerned and surprised and it caused a stir. My office was again suddenly inundated with phone calls and e-mails.
Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment staff told people it was to do the land management’s provision for Nightcliff island. Given that there has been silence about the proposed island for so long, with the ministers and government denying knowledge of anything, the community has great concern and we wonder what is going on when lands management makes provision for identifying a lot on the map. Why the secrecy? What is going on? Who approved the creation of the lot? These are just some of the questions from concerned community members. The public needs to know what decisions are being made in planning, considering there has already been a huge outpouring of angst and concern about the project.
As far as I am aware there has been no further development in drilling and surveying the area. My constituents and I are very concerned and would appreciate the minister answering that direct question about the lot number when responding to this motion.
As the proposal for granting of the lease and the approval to begin preliminary drilling was all done without any community consultation, you can understand why residents are now asking what is happening with the development.
The essential problem with the Nightcliff island proposal and many other decisions made by this CLP government is that they are out of touch; they are not listening to the community. I hear this constantly as I move about my electorate and in other centres and communities I visit throughout the Territory. Why will the government not listen to the very real concerns of ordinary citizens about significant proposals like Nightcliff island?
In a recent statement to the House the Chief Minister said:
When I addressed this issue last year the then minister for Lands and Planning repeatedly emphasised this was not a government project and they had not proposed the development. However, both he and the Chief Minister expressed enthusiasm for the idea, with the Chief Minister going as far as describing the idea as ‘a visionary concept’.
Vision and consultation are not mutually exclusive. Last year I moved the following motion in the House:
That was a year ago almost to the day, and the response from the government was appalling. When we debated the motion, they just laughed and mocked it. I get a sense tonight we will be in for the same thing, which is appalling and highlights the arrogance of the CLP government.
Minister Chandler spoke about population growth and the need for development:
I have no issue with planned development such as the city of Weddell. We need a beautiful harbour surrounded by cities – Darwin, Palmerston and Weddell – but we have a problem with an island in our harbour. Our community is already full and we have huge population increases with infill anyway. It is not an affordable housing initiative. Sydney has housing issues, but we do not see them proposing a man-made island in their harbour.
The member for Sanderson said about the development along the foreshore area of Nightcliff:
This highlights the arrogance and how you do not get it. We are not talking about development or being anti-development, we are talking about a man-made island in our harbour.
We kept hearing in debate last year that government members did not necessarily agree with the island but thought the process should go ahead. That highlights how out of touch the CLP government is. There has been no process to date. The community does not want an island in the harbour. It is a simple, strong message and the government needs to listen.
I know we will be hearing from minister Tollner later this evening, but last year he commented:
You do not get the point! It is our harbour, a pristine area with marine life. Mr Tollner went on to say:
As a government you do not get it. You are so shamefully out of touch that you do not understand the community does not want an island in the harbour. We are not talking about people being self-righteous and saying because they do not want to live there they do not want others to live there. It is about building a man-made island in our natural environment and is the most ridiculous idea.
Last year it was summed up by our now Planning minister who in debate said:
He went on to say:
Minister, how dare you be so rude and call the Nightcliff and the broader Darwin community ignorant. Perhaps you are so ignorant you think it is acceptable to issue a lease without any consultation to build an island in our harbour. There was no consultation, no conversation with the community, you just issued a lease.
The government made a commitment that the Planning Commission would involve the community at the earlier stage. However, drilling was to commence less than two weeks after the community finding out about the island proposal. That is another example of the CLP government keeping Territorians in the dark, cutting red tape and cutting green tape and fast-tracking development without consulting with the community.
The minister was responsible for granting the Crown lease. There were many questions at the time about the granting of that lease. Where does that lease stand now? Are the people using that area, especially at low tide, trespassing? Has it been rezoned? We are calling on the government to tell it straight.
The community has made it clear that Nightcliff island should be dead in the water. Why does the government not say that? The government has been suspiciously quiet on the issue for a long period of time, but we know that does not necessarily mean it is over. All it took was a simple lot number on a map for the community to express their angst again. There is a history of keeping this proposed development hush, hush. The Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan was released more than 12 months ago and the island was not even mentioned. The island was given significant development proposal status some time ago by the government. That was interesting considering the government said it is not its proposal and it does not appear on land use plans, but suddenly it appeared as a significant development proposal. That information is very select and thin on the ground.
Under the Planning Act, the definition of land includes land covered by water, which includes the sand flats and tidal areas in Nightcliff. Currently this land is zoned as PS, Public Open Space in the Northern Territory Planning Scheme. The primary purpose of the Public Open Space zone is to provide public areas for recreational activity, which is exactly what you think your harbour should be. Development should be limited for public use and enjoyment consistent with the recreational opportunities of the land which has minimal adverse impact, if any, on nearby property. I am not sure how a man-made island in the harbour which would house 3000 people, with some buildings as high as 14 storeys, is consistent with the current zoning of the land and the surrounding amenities, or would have minimal adverse impact. That is ridiculous.
People live in Nightcliff and Coconut Grove because they love the beachside lifestyle. Walking along the foreshore and heading out on to the sand in the evening is extremely popular. At this time of year, when it is hot and you cannot swim, it is still relaxing; many people do it. You are allowed to take dogs there without them being on leads. It is a lovely, popular lifestyle and people want that, which is why they live there. We have seen infill. The social impact we are seeing from infill is an issue, and the suburb is getting busier. A man-made island does not fit with its character.
There is also ecological importance not only of the harbour and the marine life, but the mangroves there. Some of those mangroves are the most pristine in Australia. The area is used at high tide and low tide. I have been fortunate to visit the area a number of times, being a local resident, but also to take a walk through it with one of Australia’s leading mangrove experts. They are sand flats so they are not muddy. There are amazingly different species of mangroves there. The eucalypt mangroves are similar to eucalypt trees and the leaves are scented. It is a hugely important ecological area. By building an island you would kill those mangroves. Everyone knows mangroves are the lungs of the harbour and killing them would have a huge impact on Darwin harbour.
It is laughable to suggest that proper consultation was carried out because a simple advertisement was placed in the NT News. The process where a lease was granted and permission was given to start drilling has impacted on the government’s reputation. People think it shows how out of touch government is. There has been no consideration to environmental impacts or infrastructure ramifications of such an area. We are talking about a tidal area. We already have such varying and extreme conditions with the real risk of cyclones. There have been a couple of cyclones in the last few weeks.
Last Wet Season we saw huge erosion issues along the foreshore of the Darwin coast. The council has built some rock walls in the immediate area where the island is proposed, and already the rocks and sand are washing away at each end. That is trying to protect the foreshore and the coast, even without building the island. You have to consider how feasible the island would be and the impact it would cause by channelling water different ways, especially in the Wet Season. By removing those mangroves will we see water channelled into areas of Nightcliff and Coconut Grove that previously were not at risk of storm surge? Will we see more erosion? One would think so, considering the erosion we have already seen.
The government’s secrecy, unwillingness to consult with the community and constant refusal to be upfront with people about this development shows how out of touch with people it is. Government members are worrying about their self-interest rather than governing the Territory. This proposal highlights it. It is 15 months since a lease was secretly issued over the Christmas period, questions have been ignored and it has refused to answer for many months now. The community has a right to know what is happening. The lease was granted without consultation, the offshore drilling has been conducted and the pleas and concerns of local residents have fallen on deaf ears. I am not just talking about the people who gathered here at parliament or who have attended community meetings. I know many people have contacted ministers and CLP members of parliament expressing their concerns, which have fallen on deaf ears.
Since the beginning stages of the proposal my office has been inundated by anxious residents wanting to know what is happening, how the CLP government has allowed it to happen and why the government has failed to consult the wider community.
It is an issue that comes up every week. Whether I am at the markets, out doorknocking or at the local school, people ask what is happening. Even today, at school drop-off, ‘What is happening in parliament?’ ‘Yes, talking about Nightcliff island.’ People are appalled at the lack of consultation and communication from this government.
Previously I talked in the House about one local resident, an 11-year-old student, Bella, who letterboxed her street with a survey asking them what they thought. She then came to me, as the local member, to make sure I knew her and her neighbours’ views. If a primary school student can speak, why can’t the government? If an 11- or 12-year-old primary school student has the ability to ask her community, it cannot be that hard for a government that injected $33m into the Chief Minister’s office for advertising and PR to come to Nightcliff and talk to people. The residents in my community feel they have been treated with contempt.
I am not alone in expressing my distrust in this government’s willingness to act in the best interests of Territorians. The government’s record of working with and governing for the people is appalling. We are asking for a straight answer. The community has some questions. How did the project end up becoming a significant development proposal? Did the minister refer it to the Planning Commission? They are simple questions.
We suddenly had a lease issued with no consultation, and it was described as a ‘significant development proposal’. On what basis was the developer granted a five-year lease? When will the CLP demonstrate it has the capacity and the intention of governing in the best interests of all Territorians? How will the CLP ensure the leases for development are never given without community consultation? What will happen with the lease agreement when it expires in 2018? Will the lease area be removed from planning maps? Finally, but most importantly, what are the future plans for the Nightcliff island project …
Mr Chandler interjecting.
Ms FYLES: I pick up the interjection from the minister. I hope he is paying attention because these are the questions our community wants answered.
The evidence against the development of this project is overwhelming. I have already presented petitions and spoken in the parliament about results of surveys conducted which categorically show the community is not in favour of the wreck and ruin of precious natural habitats. It is just not on. Our community does not want a man-made island.
I have talked about the extreme weather conditions we experience in the Top End, although they are somewhat lacking this year. The likelihood of Darwin Harbour being exposed to cyclonic activity will happen, whether it is this year or next year. We already have flooding issues …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nightcliff you have the call.
Ms FYLES: The current flooding issues in and around Rapid Creek, the vulnerability of the foreshore area to erosion are enough evidence that an environmental impact analysis needed to be carried out. I was astounded to learn that the EPA last year, before the lease was issued, determined it was unnecessary. For the EPA to say it did not feel that an environmental impact analysis was needed for a development that would involve reclaiming 98 ha of the Nightcliff foreshore shows how short-sighted it is.
This proposal concerns our beautiful harbour. There is nothing nicer in the Dry Season than heading across to Mandorah or Mica Beach, getting out on the water and enjoying the harbour, or just heading to East Point, walking and fishing.
The harbour should be safe from development. There are areas of land along the foreshore that might be zoned as parks and open space. The member for Fong Lim would love to develop it all. We understand those areas may come up for claim but the harbour – water? That is what astounds most people. We would not be having this conversation if it was Sydney Harbour, so why not treat Darwin Harbour with equal respect?
The harbour should be safe from development but under the CLP nothing is safe. The NT government has granted the Crown lease for the project in open space in a harbour people thought would be regarded as special and never developed. Now that Crown lease has gone further with the issuing of a lot number. The minister has a lot to answer for. Why was that lot number issued? Why was there no consultation? Why did it take people looking at maps for another project to suddenly find the lot number? Will we wake up one day and you will have built the island? It feels like that sometimes.
An island such as this will cause huge social impacts. I have already spoken about the density in the Nightcliff, Coconut Grove area; there are a lot of units, a lot of infill and the traffic gets heavier each year. The Nightcliff Woolworths used to be quiet but with the population growth now it is not, but that is fine. There are social impacts which need to be addressed such as the schools, the infrastructure and the environmental impacts.
The island will impact on our mangroves and our harbour’s health. Mangroves are a crucial part of the ecosystem and important to the health of the harbour. I have talked of the time I spent in those mangroves. It would be sad if the island is built and we lose them. The mangrove experts that I have spoken to assure me that a man-made island will kill the mangroves. You are not killing the mangroves to build the island, but building the island will change the flow of water affecting the tidal flows the mangroves need. As well as being the lungs of a harbour, they are an important habitat for birds, mammals and fish; they provide a breeding place and give protection.
Some people think mangroves are smelly, which is probably what the member for Fong Lim thinks, but they are important in ensuring we have water quality by filtering pollutants and stabilising and improving the soil, and are a key in protecting our shoreline from erosion. That is something we are grappling with in some of our other coastal areas in Darwin. Those mangroves protect that coastline and foreshore.
If you would listen to experts, something I know the member for Fong Lim does not like doing, mangroves are best left untouched. The only time mangroves become a problem is when they are disturbed. That is why Darwin Harbour mangroves are protected for conservation under the Northern Territory Planning Scheme. It is obvious the mangroves will be disturbed if the developers proceed with the island. The lack of respect the government is showing shows they are not serious ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask government members to keep their conversations a little lower please. It is difficult to hear. Thank you.
Ms FYLES: It is good that the Deputy Speaker wants to listen to this. Maybe you can have some influence on them.
There are huge environmental impacts. I have spoken before about what has happened in other areas of Australia. Certain states have imposed moratoriums on canal estates. You only have to look to Cairns at East Trinity Beach where they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to rehabilitate the area. As I understand it, in the 1960s and 1970s they constructed a wall and floodgates which stopped the tidal water. More than 30 years later, after much clearing and reclaiming the environment, they are trying to dry out the marine mud. The area has excessive amounts of acid and sulphate in the soil. They are spending millions of dollars trying to rehabilitate their mangroves and we are proposing to kill off acres of ours. It just does not make sense. Why would we make the same mistake in our beautiful, pristine Darwin Harbour? If you do not believe me, go to Cairns and have a look. It impacted on their fish stocks and the natural environment which then affected people more than they thought.
I do not understand why, with our beautiful harbour and acres of land – member for Fong Lim, you always talk about looking at the land whenever you have flown into or out of Darwin. Why do you not follow the experts? We have a beautiful plan for our city – Darwin, Palmerston and Weddell – but you are now threatening to ruin it with an island in the harbour. You are threatening to ruin the rural lifestyle so many people want because you are too lazy to build Weddell. It does not make sense. We are not talking about Labor/CLP ideas. The plan for the Darwin/Palmerston greater area was done in the late 1970s early 1980s. If we look at other cities and the mistakes they have made, we do not want to make them here.
People value our harbour. They love getting out, whether it is recreation on the tidal flats or in a boat.
Obviously there is huge cultural importance to the area we are talking about. The Larrakia people have been hunting and exploring these bays for thousands of years. There are cultural values to the greater Ludmilla Bay area. The Kulaluk fish trap is one example. None of these views have been taken into account because before issuing the lease and allowing a lot number …
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: The chitter chatter is a little rude, but that is okay.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue please, member for Nightcliff; you have the call.
Ms FYLES: We know the cultural significance of the area was not taken into account before a lease was issued. They did not consult the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. I know that because I asked the previous minister. If I was the minister asked to sign off on a lease I would at least talk to the community about it and look at some of the impacts. Where are the environmental studies? No, we do not need those. Perhaps there is some cultural significance to the area. Should he talk to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and get them to do a report? No, that would be a bit too silly. There are so many reasons why this island is wrong – social, environmental and cultural.
The island is not wanted by the community. From day one the process has been secretive and hasty, without consultation, undermining local residents and people of the NT. We need to hear from the government what is going on. Why did it issue the lease in secrecy? Why is there suddenly a lot number? It is time the government listened to the people.
I repeat our community’s call to the Minister for Lands and Planning to stop the moves to develop a residential island in our pristine harbour. It is not too much to ask to listen to what local residents and citizens of the broader community want. They want their harbour preserved. This is not a NIMBY; this is across the Darwin area. People do not want to see an island in their harbour.
I give special thanks to the community for its ongoing support. In my job I get to speak here, which is a great privilege. The Environmental Defenders Office (NT) and the NT Environment Centre, which have both sadly been affected by huge funding cuts, have provided a great deal of resource and support to the broader community. This is not just me, this is the community getting together, holding events on the foreshore and working on market stalls.
I moved this motion during the last sittings hoping we would get to it, but time did not allow that. This is off the back of the January lot discovery which has pushed the community to again ask questions. The community is anxious about this and will not allow it; it is not on. The government needs to respect the broader Darwin community and answer some of these questions ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask that the member for Nightcliff be given additional time to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms FYLES: The member for Fong Lim did not know the standing order number but that is all right. The Treasurer does not know his numbers.
I thank the community. The issue is extremely concerning and the community stands ready to act. Hopefully the minister and the government will finally listen. We will hold this government to account. There are so many reasons why this proposal does not stack up, and there are so many unanswered questions about how it has reached this point. The government should do itself a favour, start to listen and answer these questions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing this motion to the House. It is raised my awareness somewhat and I have to be honest here ...
Ms Fyles: You always have to be honest.
Mr TOLLNER: No, no, I am coming clean; I have had enough of this government. As the opposition rightly said, it is the worst government in the Territory’s history. Everything is going to custard with this government. I will make a statement here; I will turn my back on this government and bell the cat. It is time we came clean. It is time we ended the secrecy.
I received a phone call last night, on my magic telephone, from Peter Pan who had Tinker Bell with him. They are visiting the member for Nightcliff’s house tonight and they have some grave concerns. I have tried to talk to members of the government about this, but no one seems to listen. I have been trying to talk to the Chief Minister. I told him about the phone call I received last night on my magic phone.
I honestly think we should have a state of emergency over this because it might come as a surprise, but Captain Hook is turning up. He has bought that 14-storey building on Nightcliff island and is preparing to put rocket turrets along it, and bomb the people of Nightcliff.
I cannot bottle this up any longer. It is time we came clean. Member for Nightcliff, I do not know if I am breaking ranks with government here ...
Mr Elferink: I promise not to tell.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes. While I am at it, there are plans to have a large-scale unicorn breeding facility on the island as well ...
Mr Vowles: Are you calling it Elferink?
Mr TOLLNER: No. This is all top secret stuff I am saying at the moment. Another lot number is about to be issued for a giant island right next to it, which will house the workers from the unicorn farm and get things happening.
I should also let people know that Ayers Rock has secretly been hollowed out, and we intend to refuel the new submarines Australia is building from Ayers Rock ...
Mr Elferink: Elvis Presley finally has a job.
Mr TOLLNER: That is correct. The member for Port Darwin is not happy with me, because he spent the last two-and-a-half years tunnelling from the Great Australian Bight into Ayers Rock, so there is a way for the submarines to get there and refuel.
The Chief Minister has great plans to run nuclear trains up and down the railway. We will see nuclear trains, if this government is allowed to continue. I honestly think the Territory will not be ready for it, especially when Captain Hook arrives, because the people on his ship, the pirates, are not very nice people at all. It is a worry.
My friend Don Quixote has been warning me for some time that these things are happening, and it is only now the member for Nightcliff has made these matters public that it is time we came out and fessed up about the unicorn farm and people sending rockets onto the good citizens of Nightcliff from this island.
You cannot see it on any map; you have to have special sight. Clearly that is what the member for Nightcliff has – special sight. I cannot see it myself, but others like Peter Pan have told me that it exists. I am sure if the member for Nightcliff can get out of here quick enough, she will have to be home by dark because that is when Peter and Tinker Bell intend to visit her and talk with her and some of her constituents about the concerns they have about this fellow, Captain Hook. The movies are true, without a doubt.
Maybe the member for Johnston can duck around to the member for Nightcliff’s house. I note he is also very concerned about this island. He must have special vision with good eyes, which I suppose comes from playing lots of cricket. They see islands where most people cannot see them, which is an amazing ability. How blessed the member for Nightcliff is.
In some regard I can see the direction of the member for Port Darwin and why he wants to turn Ayers Rock into a submarine refuelling station and the Chief Minister wants to run nuclear trains up and down our railway line. It is obviously to cart unicorn meat to South Australia. They tell me it is quite tasty. In any case it all sounds quite concerning.
As a member of this government, I have been convinced by the member for Nightcliff that this island is real and somehow it is on a map. It does not seem to matter what the government says, there is talk of a 14-storey building, the secrecy and the cover-ups. The fact is nobody sees this island, except for the members for Nightcliff and Johnston.
I was told by the member for Arafura that this island has an Aboriginal name. It has been there for a long time. Clearly it is something we did not understand. Of course, with the mangroves, pity the poor prawns. But unicorn meat is of more value than mangroves.
I have been told by the developers that it is unlikely that any island could ever be built because they have been doing some geotechnical drilling, and all they have found with this drilling is mud and more mud. They have not struck rock anywhere. I do not know whether there ever will be a proposal for an island. Clearly I am missing something because the members for Nightcliff and Johnston have been organising protest meetings. They know the exact nature of this island and the damage it will or is doing to our harbour. They even know there will be a 14-storey building on it. I had no idea these things were happening until I received that phone call last night on my magic telephone.
I do not know what you say to a motion like this. This is one of the most bizarre motions I have ever seen in any parliament anywhere. But good on the member for Nightcliff. I suppose there is not much else to be concerned about if you have a dreadful island like that in your electorate, complete with 14 storeys, dead mangroves everywhere, cyclones sweeping through, storm surge and developers and people who cannot afford it because it is not affordable. You wonder where you are going when people make these comments in debates.
Probably what the government I formerly belonged to, until I found out about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell, was saying was, ‘Yes, we are open to ideas. We will not say whether something is a good or bad idea until we have some information about it.’ If we were not living in fairy land, allowing people with big ideas to test those ideas is not a bad thing. One would have thought that had they struck rock with their drilling, maybe they would do some assessment as to how far down the rock was, what it would cost to build something on it and whether it was worthwhile putting a proposal to government, or indeed the people of Nightcliff, to ask them what they thought. Given the fact they found nothing but mud, I do not think any island is likely in their view.
But maybe I am wrong. Maybe Tinker Bell will catch up with the members for Nightcliff and Johnston. The member for Johnston has incredible eyesight; he will probably see Tinker Bell before she sees him. She is not a moth, you do not have to hit her with a cricket bat.
In any case, Mr Deputy Speaker, what do you say? I am thankful she brought a bit of levity to the parliament. It has been a bit of fun. Maybe she might want to get on and talk about something else.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a hard act to follow when the member for Fong Lim is in a mood like that. I did not come with a series of punch lines or jokes.
The member for Nightcliff has brought a motion to this Chamber on behalf of her constituency members and people beyond Nightcliff who have genuinely raised this issue with her. We have heard the member for Johnston has participated in public meetings as well.
I went to a public meeting at Nightcliff Sports Club where there were quite a number of people who had concerns about the process that had taken place. In many respects, the member for Fong Lim buried the lead with the geotechnical drilling results being mud and more mud. It would have been good to have led with that. That is quite important information about where this island currently stacks up. As the member for Fong Lim also said, they do not rule things in or out.
This was an instance where people thought the idea of an island in the harbour was something you could have ruled out earlier. As much as the member for Fong Lim had fun – I thought we had heard most of his greatest hits already, but he has given us a new bunch of Tollner lines. He will keep us amused for many years to come I am sure. One of the problems when you treat an issue like this with hilarity – it might be funny at 7 pm on a Wednesday in parliament – is that some people have come forward with these concerns quite genuinely and seriously. Whilst I have no doubt the member for Fong Lim enjoyed himself just then, as did others, the people who have raised these concerns with the member for Nightcliff and other members of parliament want this to be treated seriously.
While the member for Fong Lim may find it amusing and hard to believe why people are worked up on this issue, one reason they are is this government has a history over two-and-a-half years of not being transparent and consistent. That leads to concerns when things like this happen. As the member for Fong Lim said, there has been drilling and geotechnical work done in this area. People had reason to be concerned about an island in the harbour. We have concerns about this government’s approach to transparency and consistency in planning, and more specifically about community purpose land and spot rezoning.
This area of our harbour is open space. It is not quite community purpose, but you could say it falls in the same ball park of the community wanting, using and accessing that space. There have been concerns in the community about the government’s approach in a number of different areas of community purpose land and spot rezoning – in this instance in the harbour.
One reason why they felt these concerns had merit is this government’s approach to rezoning. In this instance, what happened in January was a lot number was issued, which obviously hit a raw nerve. There is a bruised electorate at the moment that has seen a number of bad decisions which do not make logical sense and are not going the community’s way. They are quite genuinely worried about the Nightcliff island proposal.
We can see why when in my own area we have seen Community Purposes land at Sports House rezoned. Both sides realised that Sports House was coming towards the end of its economic life and something needed to happen. Where our approach differs is we felt it still needed to remain zoned for community purposes. We had flagged, going into a number of elections, that when we felt Sports House was coming towards the end of its life, it was probably appropriate to have a seniors focus with the seniors village next door and across the road.
Pearl, which runs the seniors village, was definitely interested in that site for providing community purpose in care for senior Territorians who are still in their homes. The recurrent benefit of that to Territorians – keeping people out of hospital beds – is worth it as opposed to the potential benefit of a one-off sale. We saw community purpose land rezoned despite strong community objections and contributions. There were very thoughtful, very considered objections to that rezoning.
That is one example of why people aware of the Nightcliff island idea have concerns. We have seen a lack of transparency and consistency. Decisions made by this government when applied to other scenarios caused concern.
There is another proposal in my area at 4 Blake Street, The Gardens. That has not been decided yet, but again goes to this idea of rezoning community purpose land. The City of Darwin has objected to this rezoning application. I will read from its submission:
This is 4 Blake Street, The Gardens which is a planned rezone from community purposes to residential. It is a specific use purpose:
Something we need to keep in mind at the moment is pressure on Darwin and infill is occurring. Those spots zoned community purpose will be needed to provide services to the local community. Our open spaces will be needed. Obviously the Nightcliff island idea would fall into an open space. We need our open spaces zoned for community purposes. Residents and constituents are concerned when they see the government make decisions about land. They would then apply it to what is happening at Nightcliff island with the geotechnical drilling and the lot number.
There are concerns, and the member for Nightcliff is speaking on behalf of her constituency when raising them. When people are concerned and make the effort to hold public meetings, work to collect petitions which come to this Chamber, we have to take those concerns and respond to them seriously. That charge falls to government.
We saw a change of use in Palmerston which was quite upsetting to local residents. The Angel Road public housing site which was to be used for a public housing seniors village was replaced with urban residential. Local residents are upset when they plan and know something is happening then there is a change of use. They want community purpose land used for community purpose, not changed. These things are of concern.
How can we get through spot rezoning and community purpose land changes? There are a number of things we could consider. I have had some really good conversations with informed people in the electorate who have been through the planning process. Going through the planning process can be quite confronting, and they have some good ideas on how we look at community purpose land or spot rezoning. Are there things we can do to community purpose zoning to make it easier, better and more likely to be used for community purpose? Also how do we approach spot rezoning to take pressure and fatigue off local residents dealing with constant issues arising that differ from the town plan and what should be a well-considered plan for the area?
There have also been some good ideas about spot rezoning. One of those ideas is having an area plan. Unfortunately we have seen in Palmerston recently an area plan for high density buildings on small blocks has led to a Zuccoli subdivision receiving 100% objection from the local Palmerston council and residents. I will read from some notes on that. Should Zuccoli be subdivided to allow for 181 lots, of which 179 are medium density or multiple dwelling? Of these, 132 of the allotments, or 80% of the subdivision, will be between 300 m2 and 409 m2. That is a highly-concentrated high-density community not a salt and pepper development.
We are on the record as a party which supports salt and pepper developments. We want small blocks, medium-sized blocks and big blocks. We want a mix that provides housing choice and affordability for people and makes sure we do not have the potential for bad developments which can happen. An area plan can be a good way to deal with spot rezoning, precinct planning or master planning. But if it is an insufficient or inadequate area plan it can still lead to problems. You must have the right area, precinct or master plan with the right details.
There are a couple of different ways through it, but it must involve community consultation and the right detail so people can act in confidence and certainty. You must have certainty in the planning space. You have to be transparent and consistent so there can be certainty about how you can proceed. You do not want developers to be hesitant and you want local residents to always feel comfortable with what happens around them.
These are things that need to be worked on which people feel are currently lacking with the government. That is why the member for Nightcliff proposed a motion about this potential island in the harbour. There were genuine fears and concerns amongst her electorate based on things that have happened to date on that site, as well as the way the CLP has handled other planning issues around the Territory.
We heard recently from the members for Nelson and Goyder about Holtze and their local communities. The people of that locality have made their voices very clear, as we have seen in Bees Creek regarding the lack of consultation or consideration of a proper area plan. We acknowledge the work done to date on how areas should be used. Sometimes you have to move slowly in the planning space. Other people can move quickly when they build because it has been done right the first time and they know what they can do on the site.
With spot rezoning you can have a series of 12 separate spot rezoning decisions which might all make sense on their own merits, but taken as a bigger picture they lead to a worse outcome. You have to be very careful about spot rezoning and especially about taking away community purpose land. I am not aware of too many occasions when community purpose land was rezoned and replaced with another block rezoned as community purpose land. Once it is gone, it is gone. You have to be very careful about losing community purpose land. We know people need services which applies equally to open spaces. The area of our harbour is classified an open space.
We must be very careful about how we approach these issues. We have to be transparent and consistent. There is a very significant problem with community purpose land and spot rezoning which requires some thoughtful attention regarding how we proceed, what changes we can make to ensure those areas are better for local residents and developers and there is consistency. People know how it works. We can remove these fatigue elements and this pressure on community purpose land to try to deliver what other blocks do not deliver. We have to be very thoughtful about how we approach these things so we can get a good outcome for Territorians.
It is this lack of thought, consistency and transparency that leads to the serious angst for residents in the electorate about what is happening in Nightcliff harbour. I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing her motion so we can deal with these things.
As much as the member for Fong Lim made fun of it, we have acquired one important piece of information regarding the geotechnical surveys and the extreme amounts of mud from his response. We know the member for Fong Lim is capable of serious debate. Last time we had a planning debate on GBD about the third-party right of appeal, he made a very rational contribution to the member for Nelson’s motion. He can be serious and thoughtful in this space.
The member for Nightcliff is genuinely reflecting some deeply-held concerns in her electorate, as well as from people outside her electorate. People have come to me as well as to the member for Johnson and others. There have been a number of public meetings and gatherings to celebrate and defend that area.
Madam Speaker, we always need to take community concern seriously, so I am very happy to talk to this motion today. As part of talking to that motion, I raise the transparency and consistency issues we are seeing in other parts of Darwin, Palmerston, the rural area and beyond.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I am glad debate returned to some normality after the member for Fong Lim’s contribution, which I will touch on later.
The member for Nightcliff’s motion against the development of a man-made island in our harbour is that this Assembly recognises the community has called on the CLP government to listen and rule out the development of this island.
We need to repeat in this House that we on this side are 100% behind the member for Nightcliff and 100% against this development of a man-made island in our beautiful harbour off the coast of Nightcliff foreshore. As the member for Johnston, I have one of the neighbouring electorates to the electorate of Nightcliff. Many people walk along the foreshore and are very concerned about this.
I remember when it was first announced, it was in an Estimates Committee answer by the then Lands and Planning minister, the member for Brennan. I am sure he was talking about the exceptional development proposals that do not fit inside the box, such as Nightcliff island. He let the cat out of the bag and we carried on with that and obtained more information. It slowly got out to the public through other sources, and the concept of what would happen was discussed in the broader community.
More questions were asked by us of the then minister, the member for Brennan, about this proposal. I was the shadow Lands and Planning minister and looked at what this concept would be like. We were discussing it. Then we heard that a five-year Crown lease was given over the 98 ha section of the Nightcliff foreshore in Darwin Harbour. This was of grave concern. We asked what assessment would be done before any work was carried out. All of a sudden, there was a floating barge or something similar located on the proposed site. I remember the minister for all things, the member for Port Darwin, during the Christmas period, said they were only scraping a rock.
The main community concern was that there had not been an environmental impact assessment, or any measures taken for that proposal to go ahead. How can you go into a harbour and start drilling and scraping? We were very concerned how this could happen without any environmental impact assessment in that area, and we continue to be.
I attended a meeting on the foreshore where the development was proposed which was not called by the Northern Territory Labor Party; it was a community meeting called by concerned residents. There were many local residents from Nightcliff and my electorate as well as the broader community voicing their concerns about what exactly was being proposed in this development.
There was a small advertisement in the newspaper advising that some drilling or testing would be carried out in that section. That week there was a massive storm, a high tide and the water crashed over the foreshore walkway and ripped a bit of the bitumen walkway up. Many people were concerned and thought, ‘What if there was an island out there? What if there was some sort of development? What would happen, and what impact would that have on the storm surge zone in that area?’
I was fortunate to be invited and participated in a very early morning kayaking tour of the mangroves in that area over two or three hours with a few people from different organisations and a few residents. It was an opportunity to see its beauty and what would be lost if a development such as the Nightcliff island proposal went ahead.
I also have a personal connection, as many people do in that area, of growing up, walking through and listening to the stories of that area, what the sea, the land and the mangroves meant and how it all links into the story of my Aboriginal heritage and my other family. It was interesting and an experience I will never forget, and something I continue. This is why I will stand up for the development not going ahead.
The member for Nightcliff is a great advocate for the people who voted her in – we are voted in to listen and portray the will of the people. The member for Nightcliff called a community meeting in 2014 and there was a very big attendance. Attending was not only the member for Nightcliff but me, the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Fannie Bay, Wanguri and Nhulunbuy. We heard the many concerns about the proposal and what was happening. I remind the House of some of those concerns: the development process is not consistent with existing zoning; residential development is not compatible with existing biodiversity; some said the project is in a surge zone that could redirect water into residential areas; the project could have biodiversity implications for turtles and dugongs; there are no comprehensive social and environmental assessments of the proposal; others said we need a feasibility study to inform discussions on whether we want this kind of development; the proposal is not consistent with heritage recreational ecological values; and there is no traffic management plan or assessment strategy.
Following that, the residents and the concerned constituents of the broader Darwin community held a rally outside Parliament House. That was not something we organised, it was something the people organised because they wanted to show this government that it is out of touch and it needs to start listening to the community about this development.
Once we have developments such as this – the member of Fong Lim mentioned Tinker Bell, Dr Hook, unicorns, and sending unicorn meat to South Australia. We are used to the member for Port Darwin bringing these weird contributions into this House but we expect a lot more from the member for Fong Lim. He is normally a very good orator in his House and someone I have the utmost respect for. This is a serious issue. With all the fun and frivolity and some of the seriousness of his comments, he did not rule out – which is what this motion is about – this development of the man-made island. He informed the House that the developers have said all they have hit is mud and more mud. ‘We need to hit rock. We have not done that so we will not go ahead with the proposal.’
This motion from the member for Nightcliff is about this government ruling it out. That is what we wanted to hear from the current Minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Fong Lim. He did not state that this development would not go ahead. That is what we want to hear; this is what we want to take back to the community. The people have been fighting for this for over a year now. As the member for Nightcliff said, it has been over a year since we and the people raised this and we need answers.
It reignited over the new year period, with allotment No 7265 assigned over the sea, above where the development is proposed, and the rezoning of the land in front of it, which is in front of Ostermann Street in Coconut Grove. The member for Nightcliff has brought this back to the House. It is something we believe in and we want answers to.
As I said, the member for Fong Lim, the Lands and Planning minister, did not rule out this development going ahead. All he has told us this evening is that the developer has said it is not going ahead. We want this government – and I am happy for another minister to completely rule out this development for our pristine harbour.
We have many concerns about planning. As the member for Fannie Bay said, there has been spot rezoning carried out over the last couple of years, some that many ordinary constituents in the private sector are shaking their heads about asking, ‘How did that happen?’
We heard of quite a few situations where the planning authority denied it and the minister has overridden that and approved it. That is concerning as we have a process in place for a reason
The member for Fannie Bay has a few issues in Blake Street in his electorate. There have been a lot of spot rezoning in Johnston as well. We need to ensure we get this right. We are concerned with the Nightcliff island development as it is in our pristine harbour. Once it is gone, it is gone and there is no getting it back. For long-term Territory residents and new Territorians it is a magnificent area of the Northern Territory, not just Darwin. We need to look after it. We need to look after our environment and any developments that may happen.
As the member for Nightcliff said, we are not against development, we just want proper planning and process put in place. I know that has been said a number of times over the last couple of years. In this case we want the government, as do the people we represent who have asked us to raise this issue in our capacity as elected members, to totally rule out this development going ahead. It has been over a year and nothing has happened.
Madam Speaker, perhaps the member for Brennan, the former Lands and Planning minister, or somebody from that side of the House, can rule this out and support this motion from the member for Nightcliff. I hope somebody from the government will contribute to this motion. We are representing the people who want us to stand up for them. We want some answers and we need this government to totally rule out development of Nightcliff island.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, what a lost opportunity by the minister for Lands and Planning. I thought he would make some more announcements today because I had an e-mail from a person named Randy. He told me he has some great visionary ideas for Darwin and one is putting a marina in Knuckey Lagoon. He thinks that would be an ideal place, close to the highway and not far from the water main. You could bring water in and out, and the people who live there in nice quality houses could park their yachts there. The only problem is you probably need a channel through Berrimah Farm to get boats out to the sea, but I am sure with vision you could achieve that.
He also mentioned another one. There have always been problems with Rapid Creek flooding. His suggestion was a series of pipes from one end to the other, cover it over and it stops flooding. What a great opportunity for more affordable housing and choice of lifestyle! At one end you could have more industrial development around the airport, further down you could expand the clay shooting area and maybe bring another sport into that area. Then you could have houses all the way down to the sea. You have fixed the flooding and opened up more land!
We need people with more vision. That is what we are missing. That is what the minister for Planning is talking about. He believes in vision and does not care if the harbour is worth preserving as a harbour. He and the government are not willing to lead and say some areas are off limits. That does not make you anti-development; it sets a line in the mud to say that is as far as we go. That is what the big argument about the Elizabeth River dam was about. The government was not willing to say, ‘No, we will not wreck that estuary. We understand the importance of that estuary, not only from an ecological point of view, but from an aesthetic point of view.’
It is the same with the proposal to put an island in the middle of the harbour. The government could have said to the developer, ‘Sorry mate, we have a large amount of land, we do not need to put residential blocks in the middle of the harbour because we think our harbour is worth keeping not just for ourselves, but for future generations.’ It needed some leadership.
What if a developer says, ‘I have a vision for Rapid Creek; if we put some big concrete pipes in we can turn it into a residential development. We need more houses and at the same time we can overcome that flooding problem which has driven us mad for years’? It does not matter whether that river is important to the harbour or the ecology of the river is any good. No, ‘We should test it out and give that developer, Randy, a lease over Rapid Creek. We are not willing to say that Rapid Creek is not for development. We cannot bring ourselves to say that Knuckey Lagoon is not for development. We are not able to say that Darwin Harbour is not ready for unnecessary development.’
Of course you will have to develop. You cannot put a port inland, you have to put it on the sea. That is an essential development. We know that LNG has to be close to the harbour. However you do not need residential land sitting in the middle of the harbour. That is not an essential purpose. This is where the government has lost its vision. It is not visionary. It says, ‘Yes, if a bloke has a good idea, let him go with it’. It is not willing to lead and say, ‘Sorry mate, in this case that is not within our vision of preserving the harbour as a beautiful place for people to enjoy’. That is where this argument is lost.
The member for Fong Lim can talk about all sorts of funny things, but there was an opportunity for him to include some good comments about Darwin planning in general. He could have included how he sees the future of Darwin Harbour. What is his vision for Darwin Harbour? Does he think it should be developed more? If you put one island in, why can someone else not say they will build another island?
In the original 1990 Darwin plan there were six dams for the area, four in Darwin Harbour and two in Bynoe Harbour. The four estuaries that were meant to be dammed were Elizabeth River, two on West Arm and Woods Inlet. If anyone has flown over or been near Woods Inlet, you would have to say we would be crazy to dam that and kill all of those beautiful mangroves in the area.
We have a harbour that people are proud of; they enjoy it for fishing, sailing or simply using it to boat around or look at. It is not just about the technical planning issue we are dealing with. The government has a responsibility to protect the harbour. It has a responsibility to say to developers, ‘It will not happen, so do not waste your money. Do not drill holes in metres of mud and apply for a land lease. You will not develop that area; it is off limits as it is not essential.’ We have plenty of land to be developed and we do not need to ruin the environment many people love because it makes Darwin special.
Everybody can remember the issue with Ludmilla Creek. It is annoying that the criticism from the then opposition members, now in government, was rubbish. They said the developer should be allowed to go ahead. What they forgot was most of the land the developer was talking about was government land, zoned conservation. That is what it was there for. Why would a government say someone could look at chewing that up? The complaints were that you should have let the developer at least try. No, that is conversation land. The land at the back could possibly be developed, but they were not touching this public land. I remember the meetings about that.
That is what makes Darwin Harbour so terrific. I do not live in Nightcliff but I have had a lot to do with Darwin Harbour, especially in the Elizabeth River area when I was on the council. We fought so hard to make sure Elizabeth River was not dammed. The funny thing is the Planning Commission is still promoting it. One of the reasons the government does not want to build Weddell is it lives in the hope that one day the river will be dammed so it can fit into its version of Weddell. That is why it tends to push it away and make other excuses about it being too costly to develop. I do not trust the government when it comes to the Elizabeth River dam.
That is the problem with the government. It does not have a vision for Darwin Harbour. If you do not have a vision of course you will let developers say, ‘Oh do you mind if I put an island here, fill in this area here or dam that there?’ It should have a vision that makes Darwin Harbour a special place. We need to look after it with the only development in that harbour being what is essential. Non-essential uses like residential development in the harbour should be a no-no.
Madam Speaker, if the government goes ahead with this what else will it look at? Watch out, Knuckey Lagoon, you may yet have a marina!
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I love a planning debate. But often what I listen to is points of view about planning. The member for Nelson just said that a vision for Darwin Harbour might be to ensure there is no development, or perhaps another is to develop it. It is a point of view. Everyone has a different point of view when it comes to developing.
The crux of this debate is about something that does not exist. We are talking about something in parliament tonight – as we have done on quite a few occasions – that does not exist.
I have said from the very start of this that I trust the processes government has. I recall having debates like this before where I have said unless you allow something to go through a process you can never test to see whether it works. That was my criticism of the former Labor government when it said no to Arafura Harbour.
Arafura Harbour may never have stacked up environmentally or economically, but it was a vision someone had who was not allowed to go through the government’s processes. It may never have stood up. We have processes in place that are robust, and in some cases have been strengthened recently. In some cases where this government thought there was green or red tape involved, some of those areas have improved to the point where things are different today to what they were.
The member for Nightcliff has talked in this debate and even had public meetings about an island that does not exist. In fact, I was tempted to go to that meeting but I thought the meeting probably did not exist because the island does not exist.
This process from the word go was a claim by a developer who had a vision – not a vision shared by all – of building an island off the foreshore of Nightcliff. Some strange things occurred since the opposition raised this. All of a sudden people were wanting to playing cricket and families wanted a picnic in an area that is a mudflat. In all my years in Darwin I do not even think I have ever seen anyone walk there, but all of a sudden families were out there playing on an area of mud that for many reasons has environmental issues.
When I first saw this visionary idea of an island I thought it was something that would be very difficult to pull off. But I will not be one to say not to go through the processes because a business needs to have certainty when dealing with government. Those processes give business certainty. If you are going to cut them off at the knees at the whim of a couple of people who complain, what confidence do businesses have in doing business here in the first place – if you will not back your processes, your regulations, the laws you have in place in the Northern Territory? If they are tested to the point where a government thinks they are not working, that is when you change them. How do you know unless you allow something to go through the process?
How do the courts work, Attorney-General? How do our court systems work today if they were not allowed to test the laws?
Mr Elferink: You would have a kangaroo court.
Mr CHANDLER: Absolutely you would have a kangaroo court. It would not stack up; it would not work. The thing you see time and time again is solicitors – the legal fraternity – repeatedly testing laws. When there are faults found, that is when governments are usually asked to step in and amend legislation. It is the same as planning.
Maybe a view is that government was intrigued by someone who wanted to push into the harbour, because we certainly could not go rural into the member for Nelson’s area. Many developments could occur. The member for Nelson is right in one regard, there are many people in the rural area who want to protect that rural lifestyle. Equally, there are a number of people there too that would like to use their land for different purposes. From a government point of view, we should do what we can to facilitate that. We should back our processes and ensure the right decisions are made. That does not mean we do not interact.
I can recall being involved in public meetings with the member for Goyder. I particularly liked one public meeting because those people were not against development. They even came up with a compromise that I thought was very good …
Mr Wood: They were forced into a compromise.
Mr CHANDLER: No, not forced at all ...
Mr Wood: Yes, they were.
Mr CHANDLER: Not forced; the community put up a genuine compromise that I, as minister, felt the developer should seriously consider. To me, that is a good demonstration of processes that can work because the community was involved.
In my time as Minister for Lands and Planning was I happy with every single decision that I made? The answer is no. Do I think I had no control over some of the decisions I made because of circumstances at the time? Absolutely! I would have if we had inherited government when the price of land was not at the point it was and we were not trying to release land as quickly as possible and approve developments to get more roofs over families’ heads and more families into either private or public accommodation. If we had inherited a completely different set of circumstances than we did, perhaps some of the decisions I made would not have been the same.
I saw in Territorians a real struggle, particularly in the lead-up to the last election with the cost of living. That was one of the most serious issues then and still is today, although this government has done much in that space to help. There is more work to be done. At that stage, one of the biggest failings of the previous government was the lack of land release because it pushed the prices up.
What did we do? We changed housing and land release policies and sped up land release, improving the regulations involved to get land on the market quicker. The record will attest that we have achieved and are continuing to achieve that. Did we get everything absolutely right? No! One of the circumstances was the price of land here in the Northern Territory. One thing that was at the front of my mind was to get more land released quickly and drive the price of land to a level that more people could afford.
I have said before my family owned about 120 acres in Coburg 100 years ago. You can imagine owning 120 acres now. They were milking cows and so forth on that land. In Melbourne today, Coburg is like the centre of town. The city has grown and so too will Darwin over the years.
In my time in Lands and Planning I was not as concerned about electoral cycles when it came to planning – although I realised we had to deal with land release and cost-of-living prices – but ensuring we lay a foundation today where the principles will stand the test of time and we get the planning right for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now. I made many assumptions when this government came to power that plans had been done and road linkages and easements were there as successive governments had talked about areas like Glyde Point and so forth. I learnt that road corridors had not been designed to cater for a growing port facility in future …
Mr Wood: Yes, they had.
Mr CHANDLER: No, the corridors from East Arm all the way through to Glyde Point were not there, member for Nelson.
We are continuing to work on that to ensure the right corridors are in place in the future – I am not talking of the next two or three years, it could be 10, 20 or 30 years from now – so we have freeway access and light rail or heavy rail access from the current port to a new port. All these things are put in place well beyond my political life. Politicians in 15, 20 or 30 years from now will look back and thank us for making decisions today to ensure those corridors are ready for the future.
Where a second airport will be, at this stage, is anyone’s guess. We should at least make sure we have catered for that with good planning so someone does not come along in five years from now and build a primary school, a high school or village right next to where we might want to put a new airport …
Mr Wood: Yes, it is already planned for. It is on the plan!
Mr CHANDLER: I heard that, but I will not comment.
We all live in a dwelling today because a developer, at some stage, took a chance, even people who today live in the rural area. At some stage a developer would have had to submit an application through a government process to develop it …
Mr Wood: That is why some blocks go under water – 1960s.
Mr CHANDLER: Could do. That is why this government, not the previous government, member for Nelson, introduced into the regulations land capability studies. The process today ensures we will not see some of the mistakes of the past …
Mr Wood: There were rules before but they were not carried out.
Mr CHANDLER: The rules must have been bent by a former government if that is what happened.
Mr Wood: I did not say that.
Mr CHANDLER: No, that is what you are insinuating.
When it comes to planning and vision – the member for Nelson talked with real passion about …
Mr Wood: Weddell?
Mr CHANDLER: Weddell, but also talks with passion about why we want to push into the harbour and protect the harbour. We want to ensure our environment is protected, but that is one person’s vision. Another person’s vision might be to develop it. As the member for Johnston said earlier about having the opportunity to kayak – up Rapid Creek was it?
Mr Vowles: No, the mangroves and Nightcliff foreshore.
Mr CHANDLER: I also enjoyed the company of a number of people from the Environment Centre. We took a boat ride through the mangroves at high tide. I particularly remember sitting at the Nightcliff outfall for a little while to smell and take in the ambiance of the area. The object of the evening on that boat was to see the beauty of that area. I was amongst doctors, scientists and environmentalists on a boat. I had the opportunity to speak to those people. Dr Stuart Blanch was the coordinator at that time. They were selling me the virtues of the area. It was their view of the area. I looked behind first before I spoke to them because I expected there might be a plank they wanted me to walk off. I said, ‘I could be here tomorrow night at the same time in the same boat with a group of developers with a completely different view. Is it right or is it wrong? It is a point of view; development will always be a point of view whether you accept it or not.’
I go back to the crux of this argument. I have said it from the word go we are talking about something that does not exist, which may never exist. The Gwelo group had a vision for Arafura Harbour. It was visionary infrastructure that could have changed the look of Darwin, like Cullen Bay did so many years ago.
Not everyone likes that kind of development. Not everyone in this country likes Gold Coast-style developments, but they sell well and many people live there because they like that lifestyle. Many people live in Cullen Bay. Many people live in apartments and on rural blocks, and God bless them.
People need to have a choice. Unless we allow a diversity of developments across the Northern Territory we are denying people choice. If you choose five, 10, 20, 40 or 80 acres or more in the rural area, that is fantastic. If you want to live in an apartment in lovely Nightcliff or on the Esplanade in the CBD, that is fantastic. All of those choices came about because a developer has taken great risk to go through the processes a government of the day has in place. Allow processes; allow developers to have the confidence in their government so they can allow someone to go through a natural process ...
Mr Wood: Parameters first.
Mr CHANDLER: Absolutely, and those parameters are set. I know a bit about this island, as I was the former minister. It was a concept.
A great deal was required legally to put a lease in place and allow the developer to do initial studies on the geography of the area in the first place. There were some processes government went through to give this developer the right to go through the process and see if it stacked up.
From the outset, whilst I can say I thought it was a visionary idea, I did not know if it would stack up because it had many hurdles to overcome. It had to be environmentally sustainable. Part of any developer’s mandate has to be a community licence; that is, bring the community with them. This is not a government development. It would be different if it was because it would be our job to sell this to the community. But it is not, this was a private development. Part of the process has to be that the developers must get a social licence. They have to be involved in bringing the community along with them.
We have robust processes in place to ensure they get ample opportunity to do that. Public forums are held; there are feedback sessions and consultation for people to contribute their views on particular developments.
Businesses need to have confidence that those rules are in place and they will be adhered to. If you step in and do what the member for Nightcliff says, you do exactly what the former Henderson government did when they stepped on the toes of a visionary developer who has done a great deal for the Darwin area and crushed any chance of them going through the normal process. I do not know if Arafura Harbour would have stacked up. I do not know if Nightcliff island, if it went any further, would stack up because, as I said, there are many hurdles such as the environment and the cost. The developer’s number one issue in all of this would be that something has to be commercially sustainable. Developers do not want to lose money. I do not want to break it to the world but it is true: they do not do things to go backwards. One of their critical steps is to ensure something can be commercially viable.
To do something like that at Nightcliff would have taken some extraordinary engineering, I suspect. Getting the information by being allowed to do that initial drilling may indicate to a developer that this will not stack up, or it may be feasible regarding engineering but at a huge cost. I do not know but I guarantee you that allowing that developer to do that testing will give them far more information and they will know whether something will work or not.
Madam Speaker, it comes down to government needing to give businesses certainty by allowing them to go through processes that exist today and test our regulations and processes. It gives them and the community certainty and that is what we need, not cutting someone off at the knees and talking about something that does not even exist. Allow it to go through the process and we may provide options for Territorians.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support this important motion the member for Nightcliff has proposed to the Chamber that this Assembly recognises the community is calling on the CLP government to listen and rule out the development of a man-made island in our harbour.
First, I do not think I can continue with my contribution to this debate without commenting on what I heard from the member for Fong Lim. I was upstairs giving my son a bath and preparing him for bed. The last person I thought he would be hearing stories about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell from was the member from Fong Lim. I was trying to listen carefully to the debate, because I knew I would be contributing to it.
What I heard in the member for Fong Lim’s story of Peter Pan and Tinker Bell was a subliminal message with regard to the Chief Minister driving a nuclear train. We know the CLP government has been referred to as the biggest train wreck of a government anybody has ever seen in the history of the Territory. Driving a ‘nuclear’ train leaves me with the impression that it is possibly the biggest, most dangerous, devastating train wreck somebody could be involved in.
The other thing he made very clear in his contribution was that he does not take this issue very seriously at all. As the newly-appointed Minister for Lands and Planning in the latest reshuffle in the Giles government, he spoke about what is a very important topic which is creating a great deal of anxiety in the community. There is a great deal of concern about the prospect of Nightcliff island being built. Instead of constructively contributing to debate, he spoke about Peter Pan, Tinker Bell, nuclear trains being driven by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and made a mockery of it. That was a shame. He also failed to rule out the development of a man-made island in our harbour.
I thank the member for Nightcliff for proposing this debate because she is extremely passionate about her community and has some constituents who are very concerned about the potential of an artificial island being built in our harbour. It is not just the residents of the Nightcliff electorate who are concerned; it is residents across Darwin and in Palmerston.
People who call this place home understand the face of Darwin will change over time and there will be new developments; it will happen as it is a fact of life. We need to find ways in which to meet the demands that come with a growing population. People understand there is a need for development and it has to be right. However, this is not the type of development people want to see. This is not the direction people want to see government taking. That has been communicated loudly and clearly by the community. As the shadow minister for Environment, I clearly have some big concerns about the environmental impacts of building a man-made island off the Nightcliff foreshore which I will also be discussing in this debate.
My biggest concern in this debate is about the CLP government we are dealing with and its track record when it comes to accountability, transparency and listening to the views of Territorians, which over the last two-and-a-half years has been appalling. It is little wonder why, as an opposition, we need to keep bringing issues like this into the parliament and ask questions about what is happening. We want to know tonight what is happening with Nightcliff island so we can keep a track of what this government is doing. So far we have received very little clarity from the government tonight in this debate.
It has been alarming to see how this government has worked regarding Nightcliff island and the processes it has taken that have not been in clear sight of the public. The government has not been very open and accountable in the processes it has followed at all. That has added to the anxiety of many people deeply worried about the prospect of an artificial island being constructed in our pristine harbour.
One only has to look at the history of how this debate over Nightcliff island has come about in this parliament to understand why the anxiety levels are up. No one trusts this government on this topic due to its actions. Initially, it was the former minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Brennan, who brought the plans into the public arena at an Estimates Committee hearing when he mentioned the prospect of an artificial island being built in the harbour.
After the CLP government scrapped the extensive work done on Labor’s Greater Darwin Plan and went ahead with its Draft Darwin Regional Land Use Plan, we saw some of its vision and where it thought new housing development should go in the Top End. What was not included in its vision for future development in Darwin was a man-made island in the harbour.
It also came to light that the government had given a Crown lease for the area in the harbour to allow for testing and work to be done on this site to see if it could accommodate this type of man-made or artificial island, which had previously been public open space in the NT Planning Scheme. The government communicated at the time that they felt a simple public notice in the local paper was an adequate form of public consultation about test drilling for a potential Nightcliff island. This is the typical arrogance of the CLP government when it comes to its view of being open and accountable with Territorians.
In January, we also saw a lot number allocated to the area which could potentially become Nightcliff island. Yet the government has not been up front about that process, which again leaves people feeling particularly distrustful of the government’s motives.
I also question whether the government engaged in discussion or debate with Territorians prior to granting the initial Crown lease to ask some basic questions. Do you want to see residential development built on a man-made island in your pristine harbour? Do you think we should be building artificial islands to house people off the coast of Darwin?
This government does not listen to the views of Territorians. Prior to heading down this path of exploration work to build a man-made island, the government should have at least engaged in some discussion with Territorians to see if they want this type of development in their harbour. Given it had embarked on its own vision for future residential development in Darwin, if it expected people to accept testing and feasibility studies to develop a man-made island in the harbour to house about 3000 people, one would have thought that would have been part of its grand planning vision document regarding land – or sea in this case – use.
Again, there is no transparency in this process and the government has not been open and accountable with Territorians. Today we are calling on the CLP government to finally rule out development of a man-made island in our harbour. Although we have called on them to rule it out tonight they have not done so, so it leaves you wondering about the future.
The government has failed to listen to Territorians’ strong community sentiment and views in its two-and-a-half years of government. We have seen some huge failures by this government with its processes when Territorians have made their views loud and clear about things they want and do not want to see. We saw a disgraceful process with TIO, the Arafura Games, water licence allocations, Power and Water price hikes, education cuts, and planning and development issues in the rural areas. We know this government has a track record of arrogantly throwing out any genuine community concerns that impact on what they are doing.
We know this government has failed to listen to Territorians. There are some big environmental concerns about biodiversity, mangroves and the potential impact to Ludmilla Creek which have been disregarded so far regarding Nightcliff island.
There are questions we want answers to from the government, as well as environmental concerns. People do not trust this government about whether it has looked at the social impacts of building an artificial island off the Nightcliff foreshore. How would they manage traffic flow in the area? How would schools cater for it? People want to know the government is at least considering these questions because we heard the former Lands and Planning minister say these ideas should be tested and go through processes.
When government went through this process with Nightcliff island, it tells me it is willing to go down this path and see this type of development happen, and it is something it is trying to accommodate as best it can. That concerns me.
I will leave it at that. It is a shame. The government had an opportunity tonight to say there would be no man-made island in our pristine Darwin Harbour and that Nightcliff island would not go ahead. Instead we have seen its members totally disregard this debate, make a mockery of it, and treat the people of the Top End who are concerned about the prospect of a man-made artificial island being built in our pristine harbour with disrespect. That is truly a shame.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion from the member for Nightcliff and hope we see the government taking the issue a bit more seriously in the future.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, this is a parliament not a preschool where we tell fantasy stories. You would not have guessed that listening to the member for Fong Lim tonight. This is the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. We are elected to represent our communities and people place their faith in us. What we heard tonight was appalling. No wonder people lose faith in government and politicians.
Tonight the minister had an opportunity but he failed Territorians and my community of Nightcliff. He answered no questions and pretended to be humorous. However the humour of the minister shows he does not respect the community or Territorians. This is a serious issue which is raised regularly in my community, whether it is at the markets or on the doors. His arrogance and dismissive mocking of residents’ concerns shows how arrogant the government is and that it is not fit to govern.
A leopard cannot change it spots, and the member for Fong Lim made that perfectly clear tonight. It is not a fantasy that we have a lease in place. It is not a fantasy that a lot number exists. This is a real issue for the community I was elected to represent. I am in here tonight speaking on their behalf.
Tonight the minister had an opportunity. The former minister said there was some process, but he still did not answer any questions and tell us about the process.
The current minister, the member for Fong Lim, clearly knows more than he is pretending. From his comment publicly stating that there is only mud there, he has clearly been advised of some results. He should have taken the opportunity to tell Territorians. He repeated that they dug and found mud, then dug more and found more mud. He obviously knows something, but has chosen not to share that with the community. He made it clear with his comments tonight that he does not understand the integrity of our city. We do not want an island in our harbour.
He thought he was being humorous but he was showing disrespect. His comments highlight that he is out of touch. This is an issue that genuinely concerns our community. I know you have issues in your community that genuinely concern you. The people of Nightcliff and Coconut Grove are concerned about an island being built in the heart of their community, in the harbour. People across Darwin are concerned about it, just as the rural area residents and those across the greater Darwin area have concerns about the current planning decisions being made. There is much environmental evidence why this island should not go ahead, including the social impact. There are so many concerns. What we heard tonight from the Lands and Planning minister is an embarrassment to our parliament.
The Chief Minister said not long ago that he was 110% focused on Territorians. That clearly was not evident tonight from his minister. The Chief Minister said he put the community at the heart of his decisions, or words to that effect. Then one of his ministers laughed and made jokes. If I wanted to hear fairy tales I would have gone to Disneyland, not parliament.
What we get from this CLP government is contempt about the Nightcliff island issues and disrespect for our community. We have seen it with the Bees Creek issue. It is contempt; it is not what people want. They want members of parliament and ministers to listen to them, be up front and share the facts.
A minister made a joke about a serious issue. He clearly knew more that he let on when he indicated the digging in the mud. He should have taken this motion seriously and informed the community. If these developments are mocked and disparaged why encourage developers to waste their precious funds on what you mock as a fantasy? This goes beyond laughing at the community and being disrespectful to them, it is also disrespectful to the developers. They had an idea, but we saw that mocked tonight. The Planning minister should be ashamed of his behaviour. If it was such a fantasy we heard through the mockery, why was it given the significant development status?
Ministers are laughing at us and pretending we are making it all up when there is a lease in place, a lot number has been allocated and it has been given significant development status. Then, in the minister’s rant, it became clear he knows something, but he could not be up front with Territorians and share that. It is appalling.
After that performance, it is highly concerning that this is the Treasurer preparing our budget – a minister of the Crown giving that performance. Are we meant to have faith and confidence in his planning and Treasury decisions? Instead, we heard about Tinker Bell.
I thank my colleagues on this side, and the member for Nelson. He understands, as do my colleagues, how important this issue is. Territorians – Top Enders – do not want a man-made island in their harbour. They understand that our harbour is special; it is significant and we only get one chance. I have spoken about the environmental impacts and not following what other states and cities have done. The least the minister could do was show a bit of respect. The last time we debated this issue I heard disrespect in comments that showed how out of touch the ministers and the CLP government are with the community on this issue. Tonight took it to a new level.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of my community, I commend the motion to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, just like polling day, there is so much noise I cannot hear myself.
I move that the NT government considers that on polling day in local government and Territory elections:
not to permit a person to canvass for votes, solicit a vote or induce or attempt to induce an elector not to vote for a particular candidate or candidates within 100 m of a polling place
and/or not permit the distribution of any advertisement, how-to-vote card, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice containing any electoral matter on polling day. This would also include advertising or comment in a newspaper on that day.
Before the government and the opposition become overexcited about this motion I emphasise the key word is ‘consider’. I have introduced this motion to enable members an opportunity to discuss whether we should change the way the canvassing of votes and political advertising is permitted on polling day.
The motion is taken from the Tasmanian Electoral Act 2004 sections 177 and 198. I read from those acts. In the Tasmanian Electoral Act 2004, section 177 says:
Section 198 says:
In the ACT Electoral Act 1992, section 303 says:
Those are the two areas in Australia that have restrictions greater than most states.
I do not know the New Zealand legislation, but my understanding from their website is under the Electoral Act 1993 campaigning on election day is a criminal offence. They also have restrictions on what can happen on polling day.
The first part of this motion is to keep the canvassing of votes 90 m further away from the polling booth than is presently permitted in the Northern Territory. Then there is a pretty good chance people can vote at a polling booth without being harassed or having to walk through the mountains of posters and billboards that tend to intimidate members of the public who simply want to vote.
There are political animals who think this is all part of the rough and tumble in the tradition of politics, but what do the voters think? They have to run the gauntlet of party hacks smiling continuously and pushing how-to-vote cards at people in the hope of winning one more vote at the death. Are we so dumb that we believe that with all the publicity leading up to an election, the public have not made up their minds? Surely by polling day any candidate worth their salt would have canvassed the electorates so voters knew who they were and whether they would vote for them or not? Do you really believe voters need to be reminded on polling day?
Mr Tollner: Do you really believe in Nightcliff island?
Mr WOOD: Would you vote for the member for Fong Lim who believes in Peter Pan?
Why do we not let the voters have a leisurely stroll to the polling booth, vote and then afterwards go shopping or watch the footy? Is this madness designed for the parties or the people? I say it is more for the parties. Even the parties have had their doubts.
As I said before, Tasmania and the ACT already have restrictions on canvassing. The ACT was at one stage considering both a 250 m and a 500 m non-canvassing zone, which I think was totally impractical. The Australian Electoral Commission compiled a report – would you believe? It says here it was providing comments on a proposal to extend the present 100 m ban on canvassing to a 500 m ban. Luckily they decided not to do that because 500 m probably put people in the local shopping centre and would probably be a little hard to manage. Obviously that was knocked on the head. There was a debate in the ACT parliament where they were looking at the 250 m minimum zone. As they said, it could end up in the local school or in the car park so it became fairly impractical, but 100 m was agreed on.
The previous Queensland government also considered introducing some changes. After the Redcliffe by-election especially, Campbell Newman indicated he was looking at measures that would counteract some of the issues raised during that election. This is from the Brisbane Times of 24 April 2014:
The article went on to say:
who was the Attorney-General:
They are, I think, people from the National Party and Labor Party in Western Australia.
I have a picture of people lining up at an early voting centre in the United States. I do not see one iota of a poster where they lined up. The main problem in America is you have to line up for about two-and-a-half hours. In some places their voting method is very slow.
In the Northern Territory we have legislation which says you cannot canvass for votes within 10 m of a polling booth. I raise that because there has been some discussion in some quarters – there was a document published by George Williams, a barrister and senior lecturer at Australian National University, under a group called Law and Bills Digest Group. He published a research paper in 1996-97 looking at – I will read part of the summary:
This paper discussed whether any restrictions on where you can say something or what you can hand out could be against the Constitution. It was tested and then – from my brief reading – it was found to be correct in certain cases. Then it was overturned by another judgment.
The point I am making is we already restrict where people can give out electoral material. In some states it is 3 m from the polling booth; in other states it is 6 m, 10 m or 100 m.
I will read from another document I have, which is an inquiry into the Redcliffe by-election. Mr Walter van der Merwe, the Electoral Commissioner published this report. I will just read a section under ‘Canvassers’ in regard to laws in other states, territories and countries. He said with regard to distance and what you can do outside a polling booth:
So there are restrictions on where freedom of speech applies and it varies according from country to country and state to state.
I feel, from personal experience, it is time we allow the voters the courtesy of being able to vote without any intimidation and having to go through all that, because to some extent it is treating them as if they were dumb. People who want to vote will know who to vote for. They will see it in newspapers and on television; they will get it on social media and in the letter box; they will be bombarded with it. Surely we can leave the people of the Northern Territory a day of peace and quiet where they can vote for who they want.
That leads me to the issue of what can happen on Saturday with regard to political material. But on the issue of whether you should be able to canvass for votes on that date, I say, yes, but you will be 100 m away so people who do not want anything to do with you can drive into the car park and avoid you altogether; they have that choice. Then they can walk to the polling booth in peace.
I have seen pictures of the Wanguri by-election. Every time they have a by-election, the number of posters increases by three or four times. I remember the pictures on the front page of the NT News. The poster people must love elections and by-elections because they must make a fortune. Do you really need all that? I have seen fences covered in those plastic CLP and Labor Party strips. They go for about 50 m ...
Mr Giles: Nightcliff island would be a good spot, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: That is right, very nice. You would be able to put the polling booth out there; it would be 100 m clear of anything.
We need to give people not only the option but the right to vote on that Saturday or whatever day without all that paraphernalia. Trust the people, they are not silly. They do not need a whole heap of posters and things thrust in their hand to say, ‘I know you would have voted for that person yesterday but now you have seen me here you will change your mind’. There have been some surveys done that show all that stuff does not make any difference. By the time most people get to the polling booth they have made up their mind. From a point of view of whether you are wasting your time and money, that is a good point.
The second part of the motion is a bit more controversial. I have taken this straight from Tasmania and I put the heading of ‘and/or’ because it is worthy of debate. I have seen a headline in a newspaper on a Saturday morning which is blatantly political which could be used to influence people such as ‘Fred Nerk bashes wife’. ‘Oh, I will not vote for him’. It might not be true but it is ‘allegations’ of bashing.
The idea is to leave that day alone. There have been plenty of opportunities for the media to write their editorials and advertise up to that day. There already are restrictions in electronic media, but in the print media that Saturday or that day of voting should be free of it.
It raises an important issue about how-to-vote cards. What Mr Campbell Newman said after the Redcliffe by-election was interesting. He said on Moreton Bay’s radio station 101.5 FM, which was quoted in a newspaper article:
He was quoted in another paper the same as I just read so I will not repeat it. He wanted some limitations on how-to-vote cards. I am of the same mind. I am not saying you should get rid of how-to-vote cards, but perhaps leave them on a rack, They should be the same size and clearly state whose they are.
I was reading some of the comments made on these webpage news items. As one person said, ‘I do not want to be told who to put my second and third vote for. Do you not think I have enough intelligence to work that out? Why do I have to do what someone thinks, who gives me a card which says vote that way?’ To some extent it is treating people as if they do not have enough brains to know who to vote for. That is one of the issues that how-to-vote cards raise in our society.
Parties love them. I hand out how-to-vote cards. I have a double-sided one. The CLP gets my preference on one side and the ALP gets it on the other side. I do it because that is the way we carry out elections these days. Many people do not take them. If you had a rack similar to Campbell Newman’s idea, it could be looked after by the person in charge of the booth on that day. It could be his job to make sure they are in their correct position so you do not have candidates touching them.
The reason I raised this today is because it is time. The Chief Minister can tell me if I am wrong, but some time ago we discussed similar issues on whether we needed to change the way we conduct our elections. Early after the election, the Opposition Leader claimed the member for Daly said certain things at a polling booth. I have also been out bush and know mobile polling booths are rugged places.
I would like to see Aboriginal people able to walk up to a polling booth with nobody there, thank you. Give those people credit for enough intelligence to work out who they would vote for, free of that intimidation, which for some of those people can be much harsher than it is in the big city where, to some extent, we are used to it. It would remove what is sometimes seen as perceived bias in those communities.
Voting in remote communities has been controversial at times regarding influence from different sides, groups and people. We could lessen that pressure on people. If they need help, do it through the electoral process that is set up in the Electoral Act. Give assistance that way, but do not have people standing around the door handing out how-to-vote cards, saying, ‘Look at me, look at me’.
Give those people the opportunity anyone else has of walking up to a polling booth without feeling any fear. Many people look at a polling booth and say, ‘Gee, I have to walk through that?’ It might be all right for us because we are pollies and are used to it, but many people do not like it; the quicker they can get out of there, the better. I would rather they went and voted and had a nice time buying a few sausage sandwiches from the local fire brigade, spoke amongst themselves and went home, went shopping or went to the footie. They have done their duty as required.
I do not think it is necessary, but it is a tradition that has come from political parties competing against one another. They can compete on all the other days; they can just leave that Saturday alone.
We now have the complication of moving more to pre-poll voting. I raised this in the debate on local government. If we are moving to it you do not need to have an excuse to vote early. Should some of the same laws apply? That may be something that is looked at because early voting is not done in a standard polling booth, it is sometimes done in a shopping centre. It might be much harder to apply those rules. If it was held in a shopping centre like Palmerston or at Highway House where early voting has been held, the rules might be that you cannot have anybody in the building or within 100 m of the building handing out how-to-vote cards and there are no placards at all.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I leave it there because it is something we should debate. I am not asking anyone to support this, I am just saying it is something the government should consider. It may be that the government needs to have a small, independent committee which contains members of the community to look at it and see whether the idea is worth following. As we know, two other governments – Tasmania and the ACT – have it and there are similar restrictions in other parts of the world. I raised it for discussion and am interested to hear what other people have to say.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel somewhat sorry for the member for Nelson. This is quite an interesting motion and something that should have been given more time to debate, in contrast to the previous motion, which was complete and utter nonsense about imaginary islands. We are now talking about something that is real and affects people. Member for Nelson, it would have been good to spend an hour or two on this topic rather than talking about imaginary islands.
I will not talk for long as I appreciate other people want to speak. In relation to how-to-vote cards, I once had the same opinion as you: how silly are people if they need to be given how-to-vote cards? Then I became involved in the political game and stood as an independent in Nelson.
I remember on voting day the Labor Party decided to preference against me because I refused to direct my preferences to them. I won the majority primary vote and thought I was over the line, but I watched Labor voters come in like sheep and follow the how-to-vote card to the ‘T’, and I lost on preferences. You will recall Chris Lugg was probably the only CLP member to be elected on the back of Labor Party preferences. It surprises me how much how-to-vote cards matter and that people follow them. If I was a Labor voter I would find it very difficult to preference the CLP ahead of an Independent, but that is what they did.
I am also aware of some polling that was done at a federal election a few years ago. I cannot remember who did the exit polling. That polling demonstrated that more than 25% of voters had no clue who they would vote for when they got out of the car at the polling booth. They virtually walk in and make up their minds in the last five or 10 minutes. It is not difficult to understand why political parties and contestants spend so much time and effort. There are literally wars that break out at polling booths every time a general election is called because people and experience tells us the reality is he who controls the space and the message at the polling booth will often win the votes at that polling booth. It is sad but true.
I share your frustration, member for Nelson, with the way our system works. It is a fantastic motion you have brought to this parliament. At some stage it would be good to have a much deeper debate about electoral reform and how we change things.
I read an interesting article in the The Weekend Australian which said a majority of Australians are now receiving some form of welfare, and the big fear is when people vote they will vote for benefits for themselves. There are jurisdictions around the world that limit voting to people who pay tax. The view is if you are not contributing to government or the community, why should you have a say in who is running government or who is working on the community? I imagine that concept might be a bit difficult for a few people to come to grips with in Australia, where we live in the welfare state we do. However these are real issues.
If we are ever to balance a budget again – I notice Tony Abbott is now talking about 40 years of deficit because no government has the will to take it up with the welfare lobby because welfare is clearly draining Australia and our resources. Without a doubt, if things continue to go the way they are we will end up like Greece.
Mr Deputy Speaker, somewhere along the line we have to admit that maybe our voting system in our democracy is somewhat broken. Perhaps now, member for Nelson, is a good time to have this discussion. I applaud you for proposing the motion. I am keen to hear what other people have to say.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for proposing this debate. I thank the member for Fong Lim for his contribution. We will support this motion. We believe it is an opportunity to consider these issues, but also go further in the considerations.
You are right in your commentary in that I said we would look at the Electoral Act on the back of former Electoral Commissioner, Bill Shepheard’s, presentation to estimates last year. I stand to be corrected, but I think that is what occurred.
We had a look at a few different things in the Electoral Act internally. Part of that review formed the basis of some of the changes to the Local Government Act which were made the other day. We looked at things such as the pre-polling, as you mentioned, and how some of those things took place. There was a range of other measures we looked at. However whenever you talk about voting, people often see it as cynical. We did not want to get into an argy-bargy debate in parliament about what should and should not be looked at.
The idea of 100 m is on the surface a good idea, but whether that is the right amount of distance and those types of things – the wording of the motion is very flexible. I am lobbied on a number of occasions about a range of things to do with voting.
The member for Fong Lim just spoke about only people paying tax being allowed to vote. That is one issue people raise with me. Other people talk about optional preferential voting and different types of voting systems. Online voting and a range of different things are often discussed, so this is an opportunity for such things to be considered.
I do not propose that we set up a parliamentary committee or anything like that. I am very happy to entertain your thoughts privately. You may want to consider other aspects of desired changes to the Electoral Act and the electoral system. I can include that in some of the investigations we undertake and chat more in parliament on GBD. It is not something we are looking to bring in from a political point of view, but see how we can reform the electoral system. If you are keen to follow that process, we are more than happy to do it. I agree that nobody wants to run the gauntlet on election day, it does not matter if you are a politician or you are voting. I do not think it is right; it is intimidating to voters. I want to see that changed along with a range of other areas.
My personal preference is optional preferential voting. It is not a party position, but I believe optional preferential voting is good. In regard to voting and democracy in the Electoral Act and the electoral process, there is a range of different models and methods around Australia and the world. Every member of this parliament probably has different opinions on these things, so reaching a consensus will be a challenge. I am happy to entertain your thoughts. Perhaps we can bring it back for discussion about some of those potential changes in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have looked at this, but have not progressed forward with a reform process for fear of not wanting to get in the middle of a political debate when we are trying to make sensible changes to support voters.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing a very interesting motion to General Business Day in parliament.
I followed the member for Nelson very closely in this place. I like people I can learn from, and I have learnt many lessons from the member for Nelson. Some of those lessons have been articulated throughout this Assembly.
Although the member for Nelson is a very caring, honest and pragmatic person, this motion could relate to the member for Nelson and his family being monstered by the CLP in the 2012 election. That had a profound impact on the member for Nelson. Being a pragmatic, caring and community-minded person, he has crafted this motion into a resolution to be considered which would remove that element of monstering; we can all talk about our experiences in the 2012 election.
I do not have a problem with the part of the motion about signage, banners, balloons and colours. As a matter of fact we did that in the bush. It worked particularly well at the pre-poll in Tennant Creek with hooting horns, people yelling out and yack-aing. It created a buzz in the town when we set up our camp about 40 m from the pre-polling place to be visual.
We should separate signage from behaviour. It was the behaviour of inducements by the CLP in 2012 that was the marker for me as a candidate. I have been involved with bush polling for 30 years and have taken a very pragmatic approach to it over that time. I spent at least 20 of those years empowering people about democracy and how to vote. I spent an enormous amount of time and energy because it was enjoyable, productive and led to a great outcome. It was about getting people to the polling booth to exercise their vote for over 20 years in various regional and remote communities across the Barkly.
That paid off dividends in my own candidacy, much to the disgust of the Chief Minister who came into this House after the 2012 election and articulated how disappointed he was that I survived. He went after me with all guns blazing and was not able to take me out in what was the most aggressive bush campaign in my 30 years of being involved in bush polling in the Northern Territory.
There was no doubt the Chief Minister had cash. He was with a team that was cashed up in 2012. That directly related to the opportunity for inducement of bush voters. It was quite interesting in my case, where in many respects that behaviour from the CLP created aggression and frightened people. They had reservations and backed off as they were confused. They did not like that aggressive behaviour, the all-guns-blazing approach of the CLP, cashed up with a toxic shire strategy under their arm and a take-no-prisoner approach.
It feeds into the member for Nelson’s motion because I experienced it from the Roper Gulf country through the tablelands and into the southern Barkly. At one stage I thought it was only me, but then I realised all my colleagues in the bush were experiencing the same behaviour and aggression. If you read the NT general election 25 August 2012 report by the Electoral Commission, it pointed out that most of the complaints came from the bush. I quote from page 17 of that report:
I will not go into some of those more specific behaviours. It is something the CLP will probably want to re-evaluate because it turned many people off. As the member for Nelson said in this motion, it upset many people. There was an incident with a traditional man aggressively attacking me outside a polling booth. It was very concerning to big groups of women who wanted to come in and vote. At the end of the day I celebrate that because my Alyawarra language skills came back with a passion and I was able to debate him in language. Some of those volunteers who were helping me could not believe it. I told them that I was completely immersed in Alyawarra for over four years. It came back at a time I needed it the most.
In the specifics of this motion, if we look at a 100 m zone to try to deal with a pragmatic resolution proposed in the motion, in some of the places I represent and will go to campaign, 100 m could put me on the boundary of the town. It might not be practical to apply it to these very small places, as people tend to generalise and stereotype Aboriginal communities – some of the big communities we have and celebrate in the Northern Territory. When you start to push out, there are lots of very small places with minimal infrastructure and that might create a problem.
It relates to what the member for Nelson said: a well-prepared candidate. A message for the CLP in this debate is trust and integrity versus adversity and inducement which is what I experienced over two weeks. That became a success for me and a defeat for the CLP. There were three other candidates in the race and they weaved their way through the maze. That was an election I will never forget after having been involved in bush polling for 30 years.
I take great delight in telling a story of a polling place where I refused to hand out how-to-vote cards. I did not want to hand them out. I had worked and lived with that community and I shed blood, sweat and tears with those people, so when I came back to ask for their support I refused to give them how-to-vote cards. I said, ‘If you do not know how to vote by this stage, it really does not matter anymore’. I was successful at that booth. The volunteers supporting me were horrified at this lunatic who was throwing out all political protocols and taking a huge risk. That reinforced my theory about trust and integrity versus adversity and inducement. The member for Nelson’s motion goes to the heart of that.
It was an interesting point to make about the media on polling day for the Queensland election in 2015, and the incredibly aggressive pro-LMP campaign run by The Courier Mail, which attacked Queensland Labor for over two weeks. You could say over 12 months, but in that last two-week period, that media outlet, The Courier Mail, attacked Labor and gave the LMP free kicks every day. Yet the result was a Labor victory. They were up against 79 seats and they turned it around and formed government.
It is interesting to me that it provided a good balance. That was a reassurance that media campaigns can overcook it. The public can judge for themselves. I do not think the public are so gullible or stupid. That is a great example where an aggressive media campaign through a recognised and acknowledged newspaper went horribly wrong.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, these amendments to this legislation are based upon a review conducted in 2013-14. The review involved considerable public and stakeholder consultation, including an 84-day public comment period resulting in 72 submissions being made.
The Northern Territory scheme is a generous scheme in comparison with other schemes in Australia. Northern Territory insurers have flagged that pressures in the scheme will result in increased premiums for employers. The average premium rate in the Northern Territory is already one of the highest in Australia, with only the ACT and South Australia being higher.
These amendments will ensure the scheme is fair and balanced while being affordable, and enhances its primary focus on achieving early and successful return-to-work outcomes. To ensure that all participants in the scheme have a clear understanding of the purposes of the legislation, it is proposed the act will be named the Return to Work Act.
In regard to setting a five-year limit, the most significant proposal is to limit weekly benefits for most claimants to a maximum of five years, with medical and treatment costs to end 12 months after that date. However claimants who are assessed to have a significant permanent impairment of 15% of more will retain the existing entitlement of weekly benefits until their pension eligibility age, and be entitled to medical and treatment costs for life.
A new definition of ‘worker’ is proposed based on the approach of the Australian Taxation Office. Adopting this approach will make it easier for businesses to determine their workers compensation insurance obligations.
With regard to firefighters, these amendments include that the Northern Territory government now recognises there is a proven link between firefighting and the risk of some cancers, and has decided to provide presumptive legislation for firefighters, including volunteers of the NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Bushfires NT. It is the intent that any active firefighter or any firefighter who has been exposed to the hazards of fires can claim. The only limit we put on this is exposure requirements for volunteers, which is if you leave the service there is only a 10-year period of grace during which you can still apply.
Older firefighters entrusted with training or managing the next generation will continue to be eligible long after they hang up their hoses. The legislation was to be made retrospective to 25 August 2012, but will now be retrospective to 4 July 2011 in line with other jurisdictions.
To give career firefighters a chance to claim, a three-month period has been set where they can claim as if the commenced date was open. That is something this jurisdiction has introduced that no other has.
The proposed legislation establishes a rebuttable presumption that particular forms of cancer developed by career and volunteer firefighters are work related. This new provision will make the process of claiming workers compensation less cumbersome. Under the presumption, if a firefighter is diagnosed with one of the 12 cancers identified in the bill and served as a firefighter for the relevant qualifying period, it will be presumed that the cancer is an occupational disease and is therefore compensable.
For volunteer firefighters an additional requirement is proposed which is that the person must have attended at least 150 exposure events within any five-year period for brain cancer and leukaemia, and within 10-years for any of the remaining 10 cancers. This requirement ensures the presumption only applies to volunteers who have had some measureable exposure to the hazards of fire. As I said when the member for Nelson asked what an exposure event was, I can confirm that includes back-burning and training fires; any fire whatsoever is included in an exposure event.
In regard to older workers, other amendments recognise that people are working longer than the traditional pension age. Currently, workers who are injured after 67 years of age are restricted to a maximum of 26 weeks of incapacity benefit. The bill proposes that older workers will get 104 weeks compensation instead of 26 weeks. This will provide a more reasonable level of economic protection for older workers and is consistent with changes in other jurisdictions.
In regard to limit weekly payments, the calculation of normal weekly earnings is of key importance to determining an injured worker’s compensation entitlement. To achieve improved consistency, this bill provides rules for the calculation of a worker’s normal weekly earnings. The underlying objective is that the workers compensation entitlement will closely reflect the amount the injured worker would have continued to earn had they not been injured.
The review of the scheme recognised that a weakness in the present system is there can be little or no financial incentive for highly-paid workers or their employers to participate in the return-to-work process. The proposed change to remedy this is to limit the amount of weekly earnings that can be considered for the calculation of a worker’s weekly compensation.
In regard to lump sums, the review identified that the Territory has fallen behind other jurisdictions in the lump sum payable to dependents after the death of a worker. It is therefore proposed to increase the lump sum and the benefit for a funeral, in addition to creating a new benefit for counselling for dependent family members of the deceased worker.
In regard to administrative costs, the Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia where the administration costs of the workers compensation regulator are not funded by contributions from insurance premiums. The bill includes a provision that will require approved insurers and self-insurers to contribute to the operating costs of NT WorkSafe.
In summing up before we move to the committee stage, much has been said here today. I agree with the member for Blain that some things we were debating in parliament tonight were silly when we could have been debating important legislation like this. Much of it was tied up in politics.
I am disappointed to learn that the Labor opposition will vote against this legislation tonight. I hope they have changed their minds.
The key features of the bill are: the renamed legislation and adding objects to focus the intent of the act; creating presumptive legislation for firefighters; simplified definition of normal weekly earnings; restricting the level of normal weekly earnings; simplified definition of ‘worker’; applied limit to duration of compensation for incapacity and medical expenses, excluding strokes and heart attacks that occur at work but are not materially caused by work; improving benefits for older workers; and enabling increased funding by insurers for Northern Territory government activity in this area.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this legislation, especially Tommy Lawler and the firefighters union. Everyone has been very helpful in ensuring government gets this as right as it possibly can. This government should be applauded as we are about to introduce legislation which is the most generous of its type, more than any jurisdiction in this country.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 117), together with the schedule of amendments No 32 circulated by the Minister for Business.
Clauses 1 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendments 32.1 and 32.2.
These amendments include that the Northern Territory government now recognises that there is a proven link between firefighting and the risk of some cancers, and has decided to provide presumptive legislation for firefighters, including volunteers of Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Bushfires NT.
It is the intent that any active firefighter or any firefighter who has been exposed to the hazards of fires be able to claim. The only limit we put on this is the exposure requirements for volunteers. That is, if you leave the service there is only a 10-year period of grace during which you can still apply. Older firefighters now entrusted with training or managing the next generation will continue to be eligible long after they hang up their hoses.
The legislation was to be made retrospective to 25 August 2012 but will now be retrospective to 4 July 2011 in line with other jurisdictions.
To give career firefighters a chance to claim, a three-month period has been set where they can claim as if the commencement date was open. The proposed legislation establishes a rebuttable presumption that particular forms of cancer developed by career and volunteer firefighters are work related. This new provision will make the process of claiming workers compensation less cumbersome. Under the presumption if a firefighter is diagnosed with one of the 12 cancers identified in the bill and served as a firefighter for the relevant qualifying period, it will be presumed that the cancer is an operational disease and is therefore compensable.
For volunteer firefighters an additional requirement is proposed which is that the person must have attained at least 150 exposure events within any five-year period for brain cancer and leukaemia and within 10 years for any of the remaining 10 cancers. This requirement ensures that the presumption only applies to volunteers who have had some measurable exposure to the hazards of fire.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, I have a couple of questions in regard to the amendments. I want to check with you so I do not lose the opportunity. Following on from this do I get a chance to ask a question of the regulations as per the bill?
Mr CHAIR: Yes, you do.
Ms WALKER: Okay, thank you. Minister, my question to you is in relation to section 203A(1)(c)(ii) about the 10-year period of grace. Does this mean that a firefighter who has ceased working 11 years previously – not 10 years but 11 years – is prevented from applying for workers compensation by this clause?
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is only if they have left the service, yes.
Ms WALKER: So, if they are still within the service and they have reached their 10 years – they may be at 12 years – they are still eligible?
Mr CHANDLER: If they are still in the service, member for Nhulunbuy, they are still covered. It is only if they have left the service.
Ms WALKER: Would that be if in the 11th year after their departure from employment it was clearly demonstrated they had contracted that work-related cancer during their service due to the exposure to hazardous chemicals?
Mr CHANDLER: I just need to clarify the scenario. You are saying somebody who left the service 11 or 12 years ago and today has discovered they have cancer?
Ms WALKER: Yes.
Mr CHANDLER: All right. My advice in that case is that we do not have any control over what someone has done in that time, but it is a 10-year period, according to this legislation, yes.
Ms WALKER: Okay, thanks minister for clarifying that.
My next question is to seek clarification regarding section 203A(1)e) which states:
This is the sunset clause. What makes the claim eligible? How does someone lodge a claim? Is it an e-mail to their employer? Does it require a doctor’s certificate?
Mr CHANDLER: My understanding, member for Nhulunbuy, is it would be the normal process of a workers compensation claim. It would start with a member visiting a doctor, treatment starting and a determination made that it is a workers compensation claim. Some people have been through that process in their lifetime, where doctors fill out forms in regard to a workers compensation claim. It is usually between the worker and a doctor who determines this is a workers compensation claim.
Ms WALKER: Okay, I hear and understand what you are saying. So it has to be commenced as a workers compensation claim through the formal process with a doctor? I highlight that in some remote areas of the Territory where a doctor may not be on hand, access to workers compensation – depending on the employer, particularly in the more remote communities – could be challenging.
Mr CHANDLER: Is this a question?
Ms WALKER: An observation, if you would like to comment on it.
Mr CHANDLER: My advice – just to clarify – is that it could be an Aboriginal Health Worker who starts that process. It just needs to start within three months.
Ms WALKER: Okay, thanks, minister. The diagnosis of cancer can be fraught – I am sure many of us may know of somebody as I do – as it can take a while to diagnosis that cancer was making this person sick.
Mr CHANDLER: I have no reason to doubt that. But in this case you have legislation that has been backdated to 4 July 2011 containing a sunset clause. It is open slather at the moment, for at least three months.
If somebody has developed cancer, or even started the process before 2011, I expect today they would know whether they have cancer or not.
Ms WALKER: Fair enough. Thanks, minister. I certainly recognise that the sunset clause, at the moment, stands to benefit four people, but there may well be others.
Is there any capacity in this legislation for cross-border legislation for firefighters who move interstate, who may have served for a certain period of time, say in South Australia, then come to the Northern Territory? Also the reverse of that where they have served in the Northern Territory. We know we are losing far too many of our firefighters at the moment. Is there cross-border recognition about service?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes.
Ms WALKER: Is that because of the national legislation from 2011?
Mr CHANDLER: If a firefighter moves from interstate to the Northern Territory, their service is recognised cross-border.
Ms WALKER: That is helpful, thank you, minister. They are all of the questions I had in relation to that. I know you have a script to follow, but I have one question in the regulations.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 22, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 23:
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 32.3.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Minister, I have a question for you as I flagged at the outset in regard to regulations. I am looking at new regulation 5B to be inserted after 5A in clause 26 of the bill. It lists the 12 prescribed diseases. This is a relatively simple question and I am sure you will have an answer for it. Compared to what the Labor opposition had in a private members’ bill, it excludes primary site liver cancer, primary site skin cancer, primary site lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. Given the hazards firefighters face in breathing in hazardous materials and toxic fumes, why has primary site lung cancer not been included?
Mr CHANDLER: Can you repeat that last bit, please?
Ms WALKER: I was asking you about the four prescribed diseases that were included in the private members’ bill introduced by the opposition on two occasions which are not included, and why primary site lung cancer in particular is not included given the exposure to hazardous fumes firefighters are exposed to?
Mr CHANDLER: First, member for Nhulunbuy, my advice is the cancers listed were the ones that were listed federally so there is national consistency. Lung cancer is already covered in other legislation. It is already there, it is covered.
Ms WALKER: That is interesting. I did not know that, minister. If that is the case, it is positive. However, why is it not listed separately as a prescribed disease, and in what other cover or legislation would workers be covered?
Mr CHANDLER: Member for Nhulunbuy, my advice is asbestosis is already a deemed disease so it is already covered and there is no need to prescribe it in this legislation. It has already been demonstrated quite clearly that asbestosis can be a work-related injury and can lead to cancer, therefore it is already covered.
Ms WALKER: That is true of asbestos-related disease and lung cancer. Is that also the case for primary site skin cancer and primary site liver cancer? Why are they excluded? As one firefighter explained to me today, especially in this hot climate, bushfires generally happen in hot places. They could be out in the hot sun for hours, not always with sunblock applied. It would seem a reasonable risk that firefighters are exposed to.
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is the list was originally based on the national legislation to keep this consistent. But the way this legislation has been framed, being covered under regulations is not ruled out any time in the future. If this government or future governments were ever given evidence that conditions of firefighters do attribute to those cancers the list can be changed. We have not closed the book on that, but we have kept the legislation to be nationally consistent.
Ms WALKER: Thanks minister, I appreciate your answer. The reality is, in the position I was coming from, other jurisdictions here and overseas recognise the whole gamut of diseases.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I wish to place on the public record that the minister did not respond to any of the questions I raised on behalf of stakeholders, constituents and the community. The minister simply read from a prepared script and ignored all of the advice, the opportunity for making comment and the important opportunity for the government to explain anything to the constituents who put together some important points.
It is a sad way to complete this passage of legislation. It is important for me to place on the public record that mine was a contribution representing voices of the Territory and real concerns, and I was shocked it was completely ignored.
Madam Speaker, that is the last of my contribution. As Territory opposition members have said on a number of occasions, should we be judged worthy and elected as the government of the Northern Territory, we have some very pragmatic amendments to bring to this legislation.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, some days in parliament are surprising. We have heard in the last two years that Labor has supported presumptive legislation for firefighters. They were in government for eleven-and-a-half years and did not introduce presumptive legislation which, when coming to government, they supported. They have today decided to turn their backs on presumptive legislation by announcing they will not be supporting this legislation.
This legislation gives rights to workers in the Northern Territory. It particularly supports the firefighters we have sought to support in this Chamber while on both sides for a long time. I find it surprising that both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fannie Bay were not present during this debate to make contributions. They have spoken loudly and strongly, but on a date when the Country Liberals are bringing in legislation to support firefighters they are not present in the debate in this Chamber. That is highly disrespectful for firefighters …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister well knows that reference to the presence or absence of members in the Chamber is not how we do it.
Mr Giles: I am talking about debate.
Ms Walker: No, you said they are not in the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy! Chief Minister, please do not reference anyone who is out of the Chamber. Continue. Withdraw.
Mr GILES: Thank you. As I was saying I find it quite sad that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fannie Bay did not participate in this debate today.
We have worked for a couple of years on this. We have undertaken a very firm investigation in regard to presumptive legislation, looking around the world and nationally at what we can do in the Northern Territory. We sought to introduce legislation, backdate it to when we were first came into government on 25 August 2012, and since backdated it even further to 2011, as this bill shows. We thought it was right to stand up for workers in the Northern Territory, particularly to support those firefighters.
I put on the record a few corrections in regard to an incorrect media release which was issued by the member for Barkly earlier today. He referred to some changes that were being made reflecting that Territory workers would no longer come under the workers compensation scheme because the definition of ‘an employee’ has changed. That is quite incorrect. The minister spoke about that previously.
The new definition is the same as the Australian Taxation Office and will capture workers who are, or should be, pay-as-you-go workers. This has been clarified quite well by the minister in his debate today. Reading of the legislation would provide clarity in that regard. Using the ATO definition of ‘worker’ ensures we have consistency with other states and territories. This has stood the test of time and removes confusion for workers and employees.
There is reference to the current scheme being a no-fault scheme providing for the rehabilitation and compensation of injured workers, and funded on that basis since 1987. The new act will still be a no-fault scheme.
It also incorrectly said in the media release that the amendments now introduce a five-year limit for payments and a six-year limit for medical or other costs for injured workers. Even with the introduction of the amendments in this bill or act as its reference, this is the most generous scheme in Australia. Permanent impairment over 15% is still compensated for life. Less than 1% of successful claims run over five years.
The South Australian Labor government has set its limit to two years, which is a typical maximum length for a major injury that is not a serious impairment. This emphasises how generous the Northern Territory scheme is. Additionally, South Australian Labor has set its threshold at 30% which sets the bar a lot higher than the generous Northern Territory scheme at 15%.
What this says to me is that the Northern Territory Country Liberals government is providing a much more compassionate scheme for workers in the Territory. It is supporting firefighters in particular, much more than the South Australian Labor government and the Northern Territory Labor opposition which is opposing this bill.
There is a comment in the member for Barkly’s media release:
This new act will make it the most generous scheme in Australia; it is a low bar, not a high bar ...
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, I ask you to pause there. The third reading is not an opportunity to refute matters raised in any closing debates or the debate before. It is not an opportunity to introduce new material. It is to talk generally on what has been discussed in the parliament.
Mr GILES: I was talking generally on what has been discussed throughout the debate, particularly the second reading.
On that point in regard to the high bar as claimed by Labor, I again reflect that the South Australian Labor government has set 30%, New South Wales is set at 20% and the Northern Territory is at 15%. To put that into context, as horrible as it is to talk about injury and impairment, losing a thumb or a few fingers is more than 15% impairment, as is a bad knee that cannot be fully restored by surgery.
That shows you the level of the bar we are setting compared to South Australian Labor. It shows inconsistencies in Labor’s claims. It says to me that the South Australian Labor government, which is a good example, believes the level set in their scheme is good, but quite clearly the Northern Territory Country Liberals government is setting a much lower bar at 15%. We are being more supportive to workers in the Northern Territory.
The huff and puff of Labor over the last two years surprised me. Our legislation lowers the bar and provides a greater level of access to Territory workers – firefighters for the purpose of this debate – and we backdated it a couple of times; the first time, realistically, to when we came into government. If Labor was serious it would have done it in its eleven-and-a-half years of government. Not only did we backdate it until then, we decided to backdate it even further to 4 July 2011 which is the date the first presumptive legislation in Australia was enacted. We have gone back to before we were even elected and then allowed a three-month window.
Is it generous? Yes. Is it right? Absolutely. Should we be supporting it? Absolutely we should be supporting it because it protects Territory workers. Two things amaze me. One is that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fannie Bay, who allegedly fought hard for this, have not contributed to the debate today for the passage of this legislation. It shows that it is all about politics, not policy for Labor. The so-called fighters for the worker are not present for that debate.
Everyone on this side of the Chamber, I guarantee, is willing to fight for this legislation for the workers of the Northern Territory, and for the firefighters. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come back into the Chamber and have a fight …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
Mr Tollner: What is the standing order number?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, do not push the envelope!
Thank you for withdrawing, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: It is a fair point to ask why they are not debating this. The second point is why are they not supporting it when it will provide a greater level of protection and cover for Territory workers? Today is the day that Labor in the Northern Territory turned its back on the Territory worker and Territory firefighters. Congratulations, minister, for bringing this legislation forward.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I remind you that no new material may be introduced into third reading speeches.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for that reminder. Thank you also for the call.
I back up some of the comments made by the Chief Minister. I have been appalled by this debate. Firemen have been used as pawns by the Labor Party. Most firemen have been convinced that the passage of this legislation will mean their claim will be automatically paid out. Nothing could be further from the truth. That has been said time and time again, yet the Labor Party has unashamedly convinced firies that if they have contracted cancer the second they put in a claim they will be paid. That is not true.
This legislation simply removes the obligation from the employee to prove they contracted cancer from fighting fires to the insurance company to prove they did not. It is, in no way, an assessment that they have contracted these diseases through their occupation. It is simply a presumption they may have.
Similarly, it applies to nurses in the health system. If a nurse contracts AIDS it is presumed they have contracted it through their work. Later assessments may find the nurse – I am not talking about anyone in particular – may well have been a heroin addict sharing needles …
Ms Fyles: The Tinker Bell phone is ringing.
Mr TOLLNER: It is interesting that you would interject, member for Nightcliff. You came in here with a dopey motion you expected us all to ‘debate’, then when there is something serious about firefighters you do not want to listen. You cannot be bothered mustering the troops, who have made such a song and dance about this, to get in here for the vote or have a discussion. You would rather talk about imaginary islands than things that matter to people.
Madam Speaker, I hope the expectations have not been raised to unreasonable levels for those firefighters who have cancer that they will automatically be paid now. It is a hard enough thing in life to be told you have a debilitating disease like cancer and have your hopes raised for purely base political reasons only to find you still do not qualify. I pray that those four firefighters who have cancer are assessed as having contracted it through their jobs. If they have not there is a lot the Labor Party will have to answer for on this one.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I heard a lot of bluster from the members opposite during this debate. We were told repeatedly that this legislation was not supported. To see this go to the second reading vote being put and not a single dissenting voice on the other side indicates the Labor Party have been thoroughly disingenuous in this debate. They promised they would fight this. They did it every time they said they do not support this legislation. But their voices are utterly silent and have been since the moment we walked in here.
What game are they playing? Why is it so important that they remain silent now, after three hours of General Business Day? Is it possible they have received a telephone call at some point during those three hours? Was it possibly from a couple of disgruntled union members who have been listening to this debate? We know they have been listening, because that much was said during the course of the debate ...
Ms Walker: Why would they not?
Mr ELFERINK: Why would they not indeed? Why will you not vote against this legislation, as you promised?
Mr McCarthy: Give it a chance. You know this process better than anybody.
Mr ELFERINK: I gave you the chance. Madam Speaker gave you the chance when she said, ‘The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Those of the opinion say aye’. Voices said aye on this side of the House. To the question, ‘To the contrary, no’, what did I hear? Not a single word.
Let us see if they are good enough to say no on the third reading. The point where you should have sought to kill it was before it went into the committee stage. You had the opportunity and you remained utterly silent. You guys are utterly wicked, and you will play politics at any level at any time. Congratulations. This is the alternative government of the Northern Territory.
The Assembly divided:
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim and member for Karama!
Mr ELFERINK: I acknowledge Professor Victor Nossar who is retiring this week. As a senior community paediatrician, he has provided leadership …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, can you pause. I would like to hear what you are saying and there is too much noise in the Chamber. Members, either resume your seats or leave the Chamber – whatever. If we could have a bit of quiet please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will start again. I acknowledge Professor Victor Nossar who is retiring this week. As a senior community paediatrician, he has provided leadership in child health both in the Northern Territory and nationally. He has led the focus on improving health and development outcomes for children in the Northern Territory for the past five years.
Victor began his paediatric career in the Northern Territory working as a Paediatric Registrar and paediatrician in the early 1980s. He has considerable experience in evaluating and strengthening healthcare systems both here in Australia as well as in developing countries.
Victor has firmly established the importance of early years as the period of greatest opportunity for improving health outcomes and preventing future population ill health. Victor has widely promoted the importance of evidence-based programs and that ensuring a systematic approach will deliver measurable improvements.
In the Northern Territory under his leadership, the Healthy Under 5 Kids program has been extended to many more services and families across the Northern Territory. This program provides consistent advice and support for parents and is based on the best available evidence. The aim of the program is to help all parents provide the best possible start in life to their children.
During his time in the Northern Territory, Victor has tirelessly worked with many stakeholders in the government and non-government sectors, always with one focus: better outcomes for children in early years.
He will be missed, not only by his colleagues in the Health Department, but also staff and organisations across the Northern Territory. I take the opportunity to commend Professor Nossar for his leadership in child health and thank him again for his incredibly important work. I am confident the programs and work he established will continue. I wish him well for the future and a well-deserved retirement.
I had lunch with Professor Nossar the other day. I can advise the House, and through the House to him directly, that his words to me during that lunch were not forgotten; they have found fertile soil in which to grow. They were wise words which will be acted upon because I fundamentally agree with the conclusions he brought to my attention.
Again, I thank him for even coming out of retirement briefly to have that conversation with me. It clearly demonstrates his passion for the kids in the Northern Territory and how we should go about making mums better mums and kids healthier and safer into the future. I will act upon the advice he has given me.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I wish to place on the record tonight the recently-announced sport house captains and vice captains for Nhulunbuy Primary School and Nhulunbuy High School, as well as the Nhulunbuy High School captains and SRC representatives.
First, Nhulunbuy Primary School sport house and vice captains for 2015. Congratulations to the House Captains of Mitchell House, Billie Francis and Kittinan Hart and the Vice Captains Tiana Inglis and Reuben O’Callaghan; the House Captains of Wirrwawuy House, Will Bridgfoot and Tanika Spirritt and the Vice Captains, Broden Perry-Maymuru and Ella MacMahon; the House Captains for Daliwuy House, Ella Seaniger and Noah Canobie and the Vice Captains, Shae Whitmore and Josh Blundell; the House Captains for Arnhem House, Tianna Piddick and Louis Smith and Vice Captains, Jacob Mery and Flynn Asplin.
At Nhulunbuy High School the sport House Captains for Latram House are Matthew McLean and Liyadari Alahakoon and the Vice Captains are Katelyn Muchow and Dominic Millar; the House Captains for Giddies House are Sam Smith and Meagan Morris and the Vice Captains are Jean-Paul Gilmore and Mahlia Snowden – there you go, ‘Snogga’ Snowden’s daughter; the House Captains for Roper House are Tayla Edwards and Ellie Misob and Vice Captains are Cheyenne Reynolds and Jack Reardon.
Congratulations to Nhulunbuy High School captains, Year 12 students Tayla Edwards and Alex Parfitt, who I know will do an amazing job as leaders of their school student body. Nhulunbuy High School has announced its student representative council so I offer congratulations to the following students: Riley Neenan, Meagan Morris, Savanne Canobie, Alex Parfitt, Tayla Edwards, Liam Cottrell, Danni Tawhi, Teneka’Lee Solar, Noke Fainga’a, Harry Parfitt, Wanetta Willis, Zane Rynski, Siena Stubbs, Harry Pitkin, Murray Bamford, Matewai Campbell, Claire Harris, Alannah Bond, Maitane Oakford, Mollie Graham, Joel Morris, and Jaylin Perry-Maymuru.
Unfortunately, travels around my electorate or into Darwin have meant that I have missed the ceremonies for the presentations for all of these brilliant young students from the high school and the primary school. I am very sorry that I have been unable to attend those. I normally would if I could if I was at home. I offer my congratulations to all of these young people who have taken on very responsible positions within their school communities. As elected positions they are a clear indicator of the high esteem in which their peers and their school community holds them. I congratulate them and know they will be fantastic representatives and wonderful ambassadors for their school in the roles they have.
I will also briefly talk about a highly successful International Women’s Day lunch that was held in Nhulunbuy at the Arnhem Club recently. International Women’s Day was Saturday 8 March. Because we do things a little differently in Nhulunbuy we held ours on Sunday 15 March. I was very happy to host and organise this luncheon but not without some fantastic support. I highlight Paula Thompson, the Operations Manager at the Arnhem Club, who is an incredible woman. She takes on any function that comes her way and she is always so supportive of community events. A huge thank you to Paula who responded within minutes to my request on Sunday 9 March when I asked her ‘What do you think, can we hold a lunch for up to 100 women in a weeks’ time?’ She did not hesitate. Thank you to her staff at the Arnhem Club, including chef Andrew and all of the others who helped to make it a successful day.
With these International Women’s Day events we do not normally have a fundraising focus but I decided it would be a good idea this year. I wanted to acknowledge the hardship we have all seen on the community struck by Cyclone Lam. So when I advertised the function I advertised that any monies we made from the event would go towards supporting women and children across the communities of Ramingining, Milingimbi and Galiwinku at Elcho Island.
I rounded up two guest speakers and was delighted that both accepted our invitation. I invited Merrkiyawuy Ganambarr-Stubbs, Principal at Yirrkala School. She would normally have loved to have been there but she was down south with her husband, Will. Congratulations to Will who lined up for a fairly significant award in recognition of his contribution to the Indigenous art scene. Merrkiyawuy knows I will be asking her to speak at another event.
We were delighted to have Jessica Dillon who has lived in Nhulunbuy for a number of years. Jessica is quite a remarkable woman with two little kids. She instigated, of her own volition, a campaign immediately post-Cyclone Lam to donate goods – from clothing to household items, bedding, bottled water and non-perishable food items – to be shipped to these communities. She used her own home as her base and drove her car around town for days picking up from people’s addresses and taking goods back to her place. She then sorted through these items with some assistance from her mum and a couple of friends. She organised – through the generosity of barge operators such as Sea Swift and Toll, charter companies such as Laynha Air, Black Diamond Aviation, Air Frontier, Marthakal Yolngu Airlines and perhaps others that I have missed – to send hundreds and hundreds of kilograms of these donated items to these three communities. I know for a fact those items got through as I checked in the briefings I had.
Jessica had a fantastic story to tell, as did Janine Bevis, the government’s on-the-ground coordinator at Milingimbi. She hit ground zero the day after Cyclone Lam had been through and is an incredibly hard-working individual. The women at this lunch listened with much interest to the story Janine had to tell about the work she was doing and her experiences upon hitting the ground at Milingimbi and being the person in charge of organising things to get that community back on its feet.
During their contributions and sharing their stories with women gathered at this lunch – we had 95 women, which is a pretty good turnout I reckon – our two speakers, Jessica and Janine, made us laugh and cry. It was a wonderful opportunity for the women of Nhulunbuy.
A bunch of wonderful Yolngu ladies from Yirrkala and Wallaby Beach attended our luncheon as well. We all enjoyed hearing what they had to say and to hear, firsthand, what the experience was like and the stories of how Cyclone Lam had turned people’s lives upside down when it passed through those communities. Who would have thought that just a few weeks later the same communities would go through another cyclone?
I also thank a couple of other people who contributed to the success of the International Women’s Day lunch. Robyn Pellenat, God bless her, arrived at the lunch with a parcel of goods from a little business she operates to contribute for a raffle prize or an auction. Thanks to that we managed raise $110 from the items she donated, which was fantastic for these communities.
I also thank Sarah Mitchell, my electorate officer, who is one of the most incredibly organised individuals you could ever hope to meet and have working with and for you. I could not have done that luncheon without Sarah, who basically did all the organising while I was attending to other business. Thank you, Sarah, so much for your efforts.
I also thank the Yolngu ladies, including my friend Dhanggal, who I contacted first to say, ‘What do you think? Will you be free next Sunday the 15th? You do the most beautiful singing and we would love to hear you sing.’ Twelve ladies from Yirrkala and Wallaby Beach attended the lunch. I have to acknowledge Eunice Marika who led the singing and is a most incredible lady. She is a very devout Christian and sings the most beautiful songs. There was some argument about whether she would be allowed to do a solo and she did, and we thought that was pretty good. Well done, Eunice.
Jennifer Peers is always by my side when we are organising these events. I take my hat off to her. The good news was this luncheon raised in excess of $3400 and we will be splitting that three ways and looking very closely at which organisations that support women and children we target.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to Mr Graham Chandler for his outstanding service to the Northern Territory. On Friday 27 March, Graham commences his retirement after a career spanning nearly 43 years in the Northern Territory government, a significant achievement by all accounts.
Graham commenced his career on 23 October 1972 in the then Commonwealth Department of the Northern Territory and Department of Education in various administrative and central supply positions covering contracts, procurement and warehousing. Graham assumed the role of manager of supply, and after five years ventured into various assistant director roles in management services and schools policy with a focus on non-government schools.
In 1995, as a policy officer in the Department of the Chief Minister, Graham assisted the coordination of the Northern Territory input into the joint Northern Territory Commonwealth Working Group on Statehood and developed a policy and strategies relating to further constitutional development of the Northern Territory. The following year, as Assistant Secretary Policy and Coordination, Graham successfully led constitutional development, statehood, international treaties and national competition policy initiatives.
Graham’s ability to negotiate at the Territory and national level with key Commonwealth government counterparts came to the fore with his representation on Commonwealth and Northern Territory steering committees, including statehood and the Council of Australian Governments Committee on Regulatory Reform and the National Competition Policy Working Group. In 1999 Graham was seconded to the then Department of Attorney-General, and for two years led the Aboriginal Land Division Legal Practice, providing legal representation and advice to the Northern Territory government on Aboriginal land, native title and other related matters. This followed Graham’s successful completion of a Bachelor of Laws through part-time study at the then Northern Territory University.
In his current role as Director of Strategic and Federal Policy in the Department of the Chief Minister, Graham has provided key representation in national, inter-governmental and international forums, including Council of Australian Governments’ Business Regulation and Competition Working Group, National Licensing Steering Committee, Standing Committee on Treaties, working groups including the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, a consultative group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Australian government delegation to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Cross-Jurisdictional Review Forum on Mutual Recognition Agreement and Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangements.
Other key achievements include: the development, implementation and coordination of seamless economy reforms; initial implementation coordination of National Counter Terrorism Committee Inter-Government Agreement; development, implementation and oversight of the NT Regulatory Impact Statement process; chair and participation in various Northern Territory government reviews, reference or working groups such as the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, Port of Darwin review, Electricity Market reference group, proposed amalgamation of safety regulators, transport reform steering committee, and Aboriginal land coordination committee.
A recent achievement of Graham’s was the successful negotiation and signing of the bilateral assessment agreement developed to streamline the environmental assessment process as a step to establishing a one-stop shop for environmental approvals in the Northern Territory. This significant milestone is the starting point for bilateral negotiation of approvals.
I wish Graham all the very best for his retirement and offer my best wishes to Noel and the family. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank Graham for his outstanding contribution to the Northern Territory which has spanned nearly 43 years.
I also note the sad passing of Jackie Hargreaves on Tuesday 24 February 2015. Jackie was a highly-valued Territorian and an outstanding contributor to our tourism industry.
Jackie was born in Melbourne on 17 July 1929. She arrived in Darwin at Christmas time in 1959 from Wollongong, where she had been a trainee nurse, together with husband Bill, who got a job as a rigger on the Stokes Hill powerhouse project.
As noted in her eulogy, she was surely one of the best Christmas presents the city ever had. She started working as a barmaid at the Vic Hotel which was then owned by the Lim family, and some years later went on to work in the Hotel Darwin’s famous Hot and Cold Bar. Jackie then moved on to the RSL Club, where she eventually opened the Razzle Restaurant. She joined the Darwin Turf Club in 1960 and bought the first of eight horses. She took out a trainer’s licence and had victories with Miss Janina and Zabis, and on one occasion she owned the only four horses in a race, which makes it quite easy to collect all the prizes for a race.
As Jackie pursued what was an increasingly expensive hobby, she and husband Bill decided to buy land in the Daly River area so she could grow lucerne for stockfeed, as well as fruit and vegetables for her homegrown business, Jackie’s Fruit Supply at Nightcliff. They took out a loan to buy tractors, slashers, harvesters and bulldozers to clear the land. Eventually Jackie gave the racing game away and also separated from Bill.
Jackie farmed during the Dry and got casual work during the Wet Season. She sold the shop to work on the farm and then met Laurie, who used to service the farm equipment. Jackie sold the farm and went into partnership with Laurie, and together they bought the Adelaide River Inn from the famed Myrtle Fawcett on 15 November 1973. The pub became known as the most vibrant place anywhere down the track from Darwin to Alice. It was full of Territory character and characters. Bull catchers and buffalo hunters mixed with miners, road workers, farmers and tourists, and many long-term Territorians have their own special story to tell of stopping for a cold beer in the beer garden at Adelaide River Inn.
Jackie and Laurie expanded with a caravan park and petrol station. Then as Litchfield Park began to be developed as a major destination in its own right, they invested in land at Batchelor. The Rum Jungle Motor Inn opened on 1 April 1988 and became known as ‘the flashiest pub in the scrub’. Jackie continued to work to ensure it was a viable business until they sold out in 2000.
But even in her 70s, Jackie did not ease off. She was a founding member of the Zonta Club in Darwin and was president three times. She was also a member of many organisations including the Darwin Regional and Batchelor/Adelaide River Tourist Development Association, as well as a powerful force within the Country Liberal Party representing the Victoria River Branch and a member of the central council. She became a life member of Tourism Top End having spent at least 10 years on the executive. She was a recipient of the Minister’s Award for Excellence, the big Brolga, and a member of Skl International, a professional organisation of tourism leaders around the world.
Jackie was a passionate believer in liaising with Territorians and promoting the Northern Territory to the best of her ability. She was a remarkable women, a hard worker and successful business woman. She loved the Territory and her life and business adventures reflected her dedication to serving the community.
She was a strong voice and advocate for the Batchelor region and helped develop the tourism industry of Litchfield National Park. Jackie was a great host and a wonderful character with an outrageous sense of humour. She will be sadly missed as an outstanding old-style Territorian. Our condolences go to her family and friends.
I also note the death of long-time public servant Adam Lowe. Adam was born in the Northern Territory on 3 September 1939 into a longstanding Darwin Chinese family whose origins go back to a small village somewhere west of Canton.
He was a second-generation Australian-born Chinese. His grandfather came to the Northern Territory in the 1800s searching, as many of his countrymen did, for that elusive pot of gold. His father was a blacksmith in the Pine Creek area, and Adam was born the eldest of 13 children.
Moving to Darwin, the family eventually settled on a parcel of land now used for the Darwin City Council golf course. It was there that his father established his market garden and mango plantation during the 1920s and 1930s. Adam met his wife Roberta in Darwin and 36 years of happy marriage produced six children and three grandchildren.
Adam spent 40 years in the public service and held many positions in the various sections of the Department of Health in Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Adam recalled entering his office during these years only to be greeted by his supervisor with a stern look. The director told him to sit down and asked whether or not he was ready for some straight talking. Adam said yes, but could not work out what was going on. The supervisor told Adam that he was concerned about his output and that he needed some cranking up. Adam explained to the director and the supervisor they both had given him some special assignments that were sensitive, both politically and industrially, and had requested that he discussed them with no one. At the same time, Adam had been expected to run the branch normally. The assignment took up a lot of time. The director appeared satisfied with the explanation. As Adam was halfway out of the door, the director suddenly said, ‘I believe you applied for the Senior Planning Officer’s position?’ ‘Yes’, he said as he propped up the doorway. ‘Congratulations, Adam, the job is yours.’ Adam said, ‘Thank you’, and proceeded to leave once more only to have the director’s voice boom out again, ‘By the way, you were the only applicant’.
He once wrote that he had no regrets staying in the public service all those years and enjoyed all the jobs he performed. He found it ironic that he should be so positive about his career as a public servant, because in his last year of high school, and having been through several visits by career counsellors, the last thing he wanted to do was become a public servant.
His desire at the time was to be an astrophysicist or an astronomer. Adam had an avid fascination for trains in all their forms which led to the hobby of model railroading. He was a keen photographer and built up a country music collection along with magazines and books on all his passions.
Madam Speaker, 40 years is indeed a long time in the public service, and Adam Lowe has served the people of the Northern Territory well. Our thoughts are with his family, wife Roberta, and children Trenton, Vernon, Laurence, Mervin, Corrine, and Nerida. Rest in peace, Adam.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, tonight I talk about the youth sector across the Northern Territory, specifically youth funding. This is inclusive of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy funding that is allocated by the federal government. I feel this is something that is incredibly important to the youth and community sectors and Territorians, and they want to hear us stand up for them in this regard.
I will start on the local level because tonight there has been a meeting in Alice Springs to talk about some of these issues they are seeing. The proposal of a youth curfew is being raised again by some members of the community. One thing definitely clear in this conversation is that the community of Alice Springs is looking for a sustainable solution. This morning in this House the Chief Minister was flippant about this meeting and those concerns. I suppose if a tree falls in the woods and the Chief Minister has his fingers in his ears, then perhaps it did not happen.
In a letter to the Centralian Advocate last Friday, the member for Araluen took aim squarely at the CLP’s decision about youth services in Alice Springs while she was a minister of the government. Some of the points made in that letter include:
And later, about renewed calls for a youth curfew in Alice Springs:
The member for Araluen, in that same letter, called for a strategic approach to youth funding in Alice Springs which I wholeheartedly support.
Some of the comments we have heard in this House relating to the defunding of the Youth Street Outreach Service (YSOS) shows a misunderstanding of what this service did. When the Minister for Children and Families and those opposite go down the predictable lines of funding for funding’s sake and people wanting to throw money at the problem, they are demonstrating that they are totally missing the point that the youth sector, Territory Labor and it would seem Alice Springs town councillors and even some of their own colleagues are trying to make: we are all calling for a strategic action plan to youth issues in Alice Springs and across the Territory and an integrated night time response. Getting that right would be much more cost effective.
Interestingly, there was an article in 2010, ‘Alice must regain the night’ in the Centralian Advocate on 24 January where the member for Braitling apparently was listening and called for more resources to be directed towards Family and Children Services. Unfortunately, under the CLP government now led by the Chief Minister, we have seen the complete opposite of this and deep criticism of anybody who suggests the same. It has been especially disappointing to not received answers to serious questions in this House about the funding to the Department of Children and Families, recommendations from experts on child protection, and an integrated response in Alice Springs. I sincerely hope we see some of these things raised and considered in the budget next month.
It has been additionally disappointing to hear the mixed messages from the CLP government about taking the fight up to Canberra on services which have lost out under the Indigenous Advancement strategy. I quote from the NT News article on 14 March this year:
We are pleased to hear about those who have received funding and that some have been successful in having these decisions reversed after their lobbying efforts. I believe Barkly Shire Council is one of those. However this process remains chaotic and confusing and is a complete mess.
I and others remain concerned for those organisations that have proven their worth in their communities, in particular those who are providing services for young people, who seem to be amongst the biggest representation of services that are missing out. I remain concerned that it seems we have a government which cannot be clear about whether or not it is advocating for what is vital funding for the Northern Territory.
This morning a question was ducked in Question Time on what the CLP, which is a successful recipient of funding awarded under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, will spend the money on. The Chief Minister continues to refer to the $4.2m of youth funding across the Northern Territory but I understand this money is yet to hit the ground.
While I am aware of the desire to keep the criteria flexible and I support this intention, I raise the issue that communities are in need of these resources now and are communicating that to every one of us. While I am aware of this desire to keep it flexible and see some innovative solutions, we need to look at clear time lines of when this funding will come through for our communities across the Northern Territory. We need a clear process on how the regional coordination committees will be expected to consult with the sector and how the best use of this funding will occur. Our services across the Territory – in the Barkly, Alice Springs, the Top End and everywhere in between – are waiting with bated breath to know if they will get a look in on this money.
The Chief Minister said today additional money is going back into many youth services. Is it new funding or is it funding that is going back into youth services? We know the answer, so does the community, and as demonstrated by this Chief Minister’s comments to media about funding decisions around YSOS in Alice Springs, it seems he does also.
I am also concerned that organisations are now in the position of having to decide how to keep their programs open, which will be reflected in lobbying for the $4.2m in Territory funding over four years. The Indigenous Advancement Strategy cuts will directly impact on the Northern Territory government’s process.
Madam Speaker, we are calling for transparency in properly resourced services where the government has identified them as essential, a government that listens to the community and the sector and stands up for Territorians even when it comes to its mates in Canberra.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I will talk about the good things we are doing. It is Parks Week. I do not know if the opposition has been to any of the activities that have been taking place throughout the Northern Territory.
First, I thank the Parks and Wildlife Commission staff, particularly the community engagement team, for putting in an incredible effort over the last couple of weeks to run 22 unique experiences for Parks Week 2015. Parks Week 2015 was celebrated across the Territory from 6 March to 15 March. It is pleasing to see that community participation was over 60% higher than last year, where we had about 860 people. This year 1300 people engaged in Parks Week mostly through face-to-face activities with my dedicated staff.
An additional 600 people are expected to have viewed the Parks Week information and image displays at the Alice Springs and Katherine public libraries, which are a great way to engage locals in what parks in the region are about, challenging them with, ‘Where will you go next?’
With regard to Top End events, in Darwin City Centre community engagement manager Michael Barrett ran daily crocodile close encounters. A juvenile saltwater and freshwater crocodile were part of the encounter, giving people the opportunity to handle them. I was lucky enough to get there to support the community engagement program, with the opportunity to talk to the community about Parks Week 2015 and handle a juvenile crocodile.
The location was ideal for passing visitors and locals to talk about the dangers of saltwater crocodiles. This proved to be an effective way of talking to many people face-to-face. Quite a few locals left the display with a better awareness of the dangers of their current behaviours, especially when fishing.
Due to the success of these encounters we will be looking to incorporate these events regularly into the Be CROCWISE safety awareness campaign in the future.
Rockpool Rambling, held on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, was a great way for locals in Darwin to engage with local experts from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. Dr Richard Willan amazed each group with his wide knowledge of not only the marine aspects of the rock pools, but also the whole Casuarina Coastal Reserve.
The Litchfield Hike went very well under some fairly trying conditions. The walkers were astonished at some of the off-track locations in Litchfield National Park, especially a cascading waterfall where the group enjoyed a swim. Discovering Wet Season wildflowers was another highlight for many of the walkers who had never walked off marked tracks before. Litchfield ranger, Sean Webster, led the group and Michael Barrett from the community engagement team supported at the back to ensure everyone stayed together. Feedback received from the Parks and Wildlife Facebook page sums up the experience well:
The Exercise and Explore activity saw 80 runners and walkers of all ages, from four years to over 50, participate in a training run with the Alice Springs Running and Walking Club. The event used the tracks and trails of the Alice Springs Telegraph Station and was a fantastic activity to show the incredible recreation in our parks and reserves.
What Goes Bump in the Night included spotlight walks at Tennant Creek and Alice Springs Telegraph Stations. I do know if the member for Barkly went along, but it was a great activity. There were after-dark experiences guided by local rangers, Jarrod Benton and Mark Anderson. Euros, wallabies, geckos, lizards and all kinds of weird and wonderful insects were seen on these night walks. Being out under the night sky was highly rated by participants.
Parks Week in Katherine got off to a huge start with people aged from six to 66 on a waterfall wandering track. I walked out to the Northern Rockhole with rangers Sarah Franks and Clare Pearce. The waterfall always looks wonderful at this time of year and is normally closed for swimming until later in the year. However due to the short Wet Season, Nitmiluk National Park rangers were able to carry out saltwater crocodile management procedures in the area and participants were able to swim. Nitmiluk Tours has been a valued supporter of Parks Week once again, giving people free ferry trips across the river. Visitors were able to meet the owner of the rock hole, a young Mertens’ water monitor which stayed basking on its rock as people took photos of him showing off.
Wildflower Wandering was a ranger-accompanied hike to Southern Rockhole for a swim. The view from Pat’s Lookout was amazing and people enjoyed a swim. Again, Nitmiluk Tours staff provided a return ferry ride from Southern Rockhole.
I thank all of our supporters of Parks Week, such as local experts like Richard Willan from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, groups like Alice Springs Running and Walking Club, Friends of the Larapinta Trail and businesses like Nitmiluk Tours. Their involvement enhanced the experience of Parks Week and helped to ensure a variety of activities could be offered. My special thanks go to these groups and our amazing and knowledgeable Parks and Wildlife Commission staff for their continued efforts in ensuring a successful Parks Week for 2015.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, around 200 women of the Barkly region celebrated International Women’s Day in Tennant Creek on Sunday 8 March 2015. The theme for this year’s celebration was Connecting the Generations – Make it Happen. This year’s event was held at Nyinkka Nyunyu, Tennant Creek’s prestigious culture centre, where a photographic exhibition focusing on the importance of mentoring was held in its gallery.
Barb Shawn, President of the Barkly Regional Council said this exhibition was a unique celebration of the women of the Barkly region who have inspired, enriched and contributed to the community.
A 16-year-old courageous young woman called Tshanka Story, who is a member of the Stronger Sisters in Tennant Creek, stole the show by delivering an inspiring heart-stopping speech. The atmosphere at the breakfast was so moving no one had a dry eye, including me. This young woman is a perfect example of an inspirational up-and-coming community leader. I take this opportunity to read her speech:
That was an incredible speech that got the attention of the 200 participants in International Women’s Day in 2015 in Tennant Creek and the Barkly region.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk on another one of the schools in my electorate. I spoke last night on Bees Creek Primary School. Humpty Doo Primary School is a very good school with a very solid reputation for doing good things for the many students – 415 students, give or take – and the teachers and staff members who make that school the success it is. I offer my congratulations to the Principal, Susanne Fisher, Deputy Principal Geoff Gillman, Petrina Shields the Administration Office Manager, and Marina Banks who is the Administration Officer and the many other teaching staff, special staff and caretaking staff who look after the grounds. It is a pretty school, although an old school in need of upgrades, as I have said before in this parliament. The council of Humpty Doo Primary School is continuing to plan, fundraise and talk with the department as to how they can improve the facilities.
The school values are solid and sensible and they try to instil them into the students: responsibility, respect, honesty, inclusion and personal best. This is what all of us want from our children and parents, families and schools would want from their students.
I want to place on the record tonight my congratulations to the house captains and the vice captains who have recently been inducted. I went to the ceremony last week. I have attended before. I help them take their oath of office and their commitment to serve their school community. The house captains for this year are for Kapalga are Liam Thornley and Abby Smith and the vice captains are Kane Scragg and Jade Archer. For Woolwonga, the captains are Bradley Curriez and Stephanie Johnson, and vice captains are Liam Thorpe-Roots and Pim Einam. For Marrakai the captains are Timothy Kennion and Tiah Young and Tejay Fraser and Brooke Deegan are vice captains. For Burrundi, the captains are Tony Lam and Jessica Brown, and Alex Kawai and Chelsea Bias are vice captains.
As with all schools and student councils I know these students will play a leadership role across the school, not only encouraging the younger students, helping them where they can and guiding and assisting them, but trying to support teachers in what they do in regard to the school, the grounds, the classrooms and other staff.
They will help with family or friends on special occasions such as Anzac Day which is coming up. Jump Rope is coming up, and I know these student selected by their peers will also try to do their best to make people feel welcome and accommodated at Humpty Doo Primary School.
It is a good school. I enjoy going there whether it be to assemblies or just to pop in and say hello when I am in the neighbourhood. I say thank you to Humpty Doo Primary School for providing the good service you do to the school community of the rural area.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, tonight I will talk about some schools in my electorate, some students who have become student leaders and leadership criteria at different schools.
First, Moulden Park Primary School is a unique school. The leadership at that school, under Ms Wendy Jordan, is hard working and innovative. They work towards improving the attendance rate of at-risk students by trying new things. I enjoy their assemblies; they have an excellent school spirit. I particularly enjoy their school song.
The future is in their hands, as their song goes. It was my pleasure to sign off on the student leaders in the school this year at an assembly where the military units were also presented to houses. They had a pledge to sign that they would lead with integrity and commitment. I am very proud to announce these leaders tonight in parliament.
The house captain for Brolga House is Elizabeth Richardson-Eveleigh, for Jabiru House Mitchel Brauer, for Jacana House Shannon Graham, and for Corella House Marlon Fejo. The vice captain for Brolga is Jamie Burke, for Jabiru Stephanie Kingsbury, for Jacana Raymond Murakami, and for Corella Djuarn Taylor. The class representatives for the school are as follows: Jasmine Clara, Jonathan Blackwood, Tekiah Randall-Tambling, Taylah Bohlin, Holly Edwards and Katherine Lemon.
I wish all these leaders the very best and may they lead their school with pride and use this opportunity to develop their leadership skills.
Rosebery Primary School is a great school. The school has not been open for many years but has established a fantastic reputation in Palmerston as an excellent school under the able leadership of Ms Gail Smith. It is growing this year with the construction of the new preschool facilities that will double the size of the preschool. This is sorely needed in the area as they have full classes and waiting lists in most year levels.
It was my pleasure recently to act as the returning officer for the school council.
The new 2015 school council members are: chair, Leonie Hastie-Gorgde; secretary, Kylie Gibbons; treasurer, Marnie Richards; principal, Gail Smith; preschool parent representative, Fiona Woolley; parent representatives, Alicia Balantyne, Lisa Sharp, Simon Hales, Robyn Smith, Ella MaGuire and Sue Lowry; and teacher representatives, Shona Henderson, Danielle Banicek, Karen Jeffrey, Carly Moir and Michele Sheahan. I wish them all the best this year as they lead the school with principal Gail Smith.
The school council members who left this year were chair Meredith Sullivan, parent rep, Kim Jackson and staff rep, Rob Dunbar. All other members were either continuing or re-elected and I very much thank those volunteers for the time and skills they committed last year to the development of the school and we all wish them the best in the future.
It was my pleasure to visit Rosebery Primary School again recently to present the Northern Territory flag and some plaques representing units that served in the Northern Territory during World War II.
The school had held elections and I got to meet the new house captains for the school. The captains this year are as follows. The captains for Balli House are Zac Borrelli and Hayley Bilby; for Wamba, Zane Jeggo and Anahera August-Unuia; for Menida, James Foreman and Tahlia Curran; and for Marnba, Jin In Modequillo and Terangiweera Edmonds. The vice captains for Balli are Noah Harris and Cielo Garcia; for Wamba, Isaac Bann and Jessi Stewart; for Menida, Dean Stringer and Kayla Araujo; and for Marnba, Lachlan Martin and Sarah Morgan.
I wish these students all the best as they lead their student community this year, and I hope they take advantage of this opportunity to develop their leadership skills.
I also congratulate the student representatives from Woodroffe Primary School, which is a wonderful school ably led by Ms Sharon Reeves in a time of change for the Woodroffe community.
The Pandanus Unit at the school does a great job working with students who have learning difficulties and need specialised attention.
The school is forward looking and has a good school council that is ready for challenges. I note their eagerness working towards the independent public schools model, and I expect they will continue to be a standout school in the greater Darwin area.
The student leaders are as follows. The student representative council members are Lara Dyson, Kasey Marsden, Kane Cartwright, Jaimee Osgood, Jayde Schaftenaar and Chace Lothian.
Of special note was the Australia Day Citizen award winner, Jagar Cockatoo, who earned this by good leadership and doing fantastic things in his school community. I remember being at the presentation when he received this award; the list of the fantastic things this student had done went on and on.
In the sport houses, the captains for Leichhardt are Kiara Craig and Beau Lothian, and the vice captains are Grace Chompoonut and Hayden Russell. For Gregory, the captains are Kho Annette Mearns and Archer Bryett, and the vice captains were Lilly Evans and Rohan Dale. For Goyder, the captains were Paige Horrigan and Liam Gardner, and the vice captains were Taqwaizya Barbour and Xavier Walsh-Evans.
I wish these students all the best as they lead the student community this year and hope they take advantage of this opportunity to develop their leadership skills.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from two Year 7 classes from Rosebery Middle School accompanied by Gillian Furniss and Sally Cotton. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Motor Neurone Disease Ribbons
Motor Neurone Disease Ribbons
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have placed on each member’s desk a ribbon to highlight motor neurone disease. In Australia one person dies each day from motor neurone disease and another is diagnosed. Thank you for your support.
MOTION
Establishment of a Select Committee on the Prevalence, Impacts and Government Responses to Ice in the Northern Territory
Establishment of a Select Committee on the Prevalence, Impacts and Government Responses to Ice in the Northern Territory
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that a select committee on the prevalence, impacts and government responses to illicit use of the drug colloquially known as ‘ice’ in the Northern Territory is appointed.
The committee will investigate and report on:
(a) the reliability of government data on ice use and measures to enhance the collection of data to ensure that the scale of the problem and its impacts on the health, justice, drug and alcohol, and law enforcement efforts of the Northern Territory government are understood and measured as accurately as possible
(b) a comprehensive survey of the various government responses to the abuse of ice in the Northern Territory and assess their effectiveness or otherwise
(a) consult widely with Territorians and those organisations and professionals with experience in ice use
(b) consider best practice models for effective early education, prevention, containment, treatment and withdrawal strategies
The committee may elect a Deputy Chair of the committee, who may act as the Chair when the Chair is absent from a meeting or there is no Chair of the committee.
A quorum of the committee shall be two members of the committee.
The committee is to report by 17 September 2015.
The provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
There is a growing threat to our community from the synthetic drug commonly known as ice. I gave notice yesterday of my intent to move that a select committee be appointed to investigate the prevalence, impacts and government responses to the illicit use of the drug colloquially known as ice in the Northern Territory. I outlined the terms of reference yesterday.
Ice is a methylamphetamine and part of the amphetamine group of drugs. Ice is a most pure form of that family. Ice is known by a variety of names including crystal meth, meth, crystal, shabu, batu, demeth, tina and glass. Studies have shown that the use of ice is associated with brain and mental health conditions including ruptured blood vessels in the brain, memory loss, indecision, depression and psychosis. These drugs can cause paranoia and hallucinations, and the user may also become aggressive and violent requiring sedation and physical restraint or police intervention.
Using ice also leads to social and financial problems and the risk of family breakdown. Violent crimes and deaths related to the use and supply of ice in the Northern Territory appear to be on the increase and it is of great community concern.
The volume of amphetamines, including ice intercepted by police, is almost double that of the previous financial year. In the past 12 months to February 2015, 17 drug labs have been detected by the Northern Territory police. The 2014-15 figures to date are indicating a further increase in these figures. We know that offences involving drug trafficking, supply and manufacture often involve other offences.
Violent offending, including the use of weapons, is commonplace among chronic methylamphetamine users and organised crime activity includes violence, extortion and firearm offences. There is a common link.
An Australian Crime Commission report released this morning shows that the price paid for methylamphetamines, including ice in particular, in Australia is among the highest in the world. This makes the importation of the drug and its precursor chemicals an attractive target for transnational crime groups.
The Australian Crime Commission Chief Executive Officer, Chris Dawson, described ice as a devastating, insidious drug. It affects everyone from users, their families, their communities and the authorities who deal with these users. He said the increasing availability of ice has created new demand in areas where the drug has not been found in the past, including regional, rural and disadvantaged communities.
It is our great fear that not only will it spread from urban locations in the Territory, but also to remote locations where it is even harder to manage. That is why intensive targeting of drug manufacturers remains a high priority for the Northern Territory government and police in particular.
Aboriginal communities remain a destination of choice for many drug traffickers. We see what happens with alcohol and kava. It is our great fear and concern that this will also happen with ice. It is a sad fact that these communities sometimes create high demand for substances which deliver significant profit margins for those who wish to peddle drugs. Drug traffickers and organised crime groups continue to target the Northern Territory market to meet the high demand for illicit substances by young, cash-rich labourers and tradesmen.
The abuse of ice is a national issue but local responses are required to meet the growing demand. This is required through all jurisdictions working together. A key priority is to effectively educate people about the dangers of the drug known as ice before these people become users. The addiction rates with this substance appear higher than with similar substances.
The Northern Territory Police Force continues to disrupt the illegal drug supply trade with a dedicated Drug and Organised Crime Division, regionalised drug desk and intelligence operatives.
Drug traffickers may be operating independently or as part of a wider organised crime network which includes activities in other jurisdictions.
The Giles government promised to be tough on crime and we are delivering across many fronts in domestic violence, assaults, property crime and so forth.
This select committee is designed to investigate the prevalence, impacts and government responses to the use of ice in the Northern Territory and report back to government by 17 September. We must first get a clear picture of how big the ice problem is in the Northern Territory. There have been a few busts of manufacturing operations, but we know the devastating impacts in our community. We must investigate the effectiveness of our current responses to the ice trade and develop new ways to fight the problem.
The police force does a fantastic job in fighting drugs in our community. This government and the committee will support police efforts by identifying the evidence of the prevalence and solutions driving forward to deal with this issue. The abuse of ice is a national issue and we must develop these effective local responses to target the problem.
There is reason to believe that ice is fast becoming a serious menace in our community. It poses a direct threat to law and order. For example, there is a direct correlation between drugs and property crime. We must ensure that ice stops killing our kids and other Territorians. It is time for us to do something about it. We have heard the cries from the community through listening to some sad stories from mums, wives and others about people in their families who have become ice users, abusers and addicts. The stories are very painful.
This is part of the reason we are moving to form this select committee, so we can investigate it further. We have engaged in pretty good conversation on our side of the Chamber about ice. There is a range of thoughts, concerns and ideas about how to progress on that. The Minister for Health and other members of parliament will give their views on how bad the problem is and some possible solutions.
Some think the solution lies in the health framework and others think it lies within the criminal justice framework in our community. I think these are important discussions we should have openly and publicly, but also within the select committee.
I thank the member for Blain for taking on the responsibility of chairing that select committee. He has raised concerns many times with me and the parliamentary wing regarding the prevalence of ice in Palmerston and the devastating effects it has had.
The time frame of between now and 17 September is adequate for us to research enough to report back to parliament. If the committee can work faster it will be good. If they need more time, we will consider it. We want to get a very good evidence base about what is occurring both here and in other jurisdictions, regional and otherwise, to then be able to identify what some of those solutions are and whether the best solutions are from health, the criminal justice system or a combination of different approaches.
Fundamentally, we want to ensure we recognise the issue of ice and what it does to the kids and their family unit. We have to find ways we can prevent the prevalence of ice, but also deal with it when it occurs, recognising the huge negative social impact it has on the Northern Territory.
There have been many challenges in the Northern Territory in the past through many different governments. I see ice presenting one of those significant challenges now. If we work together collectively as mature, responsible politicians and have a very well-informed community and parliamentary committee debate, we will be able to find some positive ways to meet the needs of the community.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House. I will be very interested to hear the contribution of other parliamentary members throughout this motion. I look forward to seeing the outcomes of the select committee when its report is presented later this year.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition welcomes the establishment of a select committee to investigate the prevalence, impacts and government responses to ice in the Northern Territory.
It was some time ago now that we called for an immediate response to the scourge of ice – in fact an epidemic – across the Northern Territory, so we welcome the fact that the government has listened and responded, albeit chosen a different path to what we recommended. We had recommended the establishment of an interagency task force of Health, Police and Children and Families to undertake a six-week urgent review and recommend actions to respond to the ice epidemic.
Opposition does not think it is one or the other. We believe the select committee could and should proceed, but we also urge the government to establish that interagency task force. It would be a coordinated response which would provide the opportunity for any early actions to occur while the the select committee takes its journey through the Territory engaging and consulting with experts and the community. I urge government to consider that it is not an either/or.
This is a genuine call for urgent action to tackle the scourge of ice. We will be debating in General Business Day later the opposition motion to establish an interagency task force. This motion is to immediately establish an ice room at Royal Darwin Hospital. I urge the government to give favourable consideration to that because I believe it would work in concert and tandem with the good work this committee will undertake in understanding a range of responses to the ice epidemic.
Somewhat unusually, the government decided, on behalf of opposition, who the member of opposition on the committee would be. We need to make one minor amendment to the motion. In that amendment, Madam Speaker, I move that the words ‘member for Nhulunbuy’ be omitted and in their place be inserted ‘member for Casuarina’.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, we can indicate our support for that.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: I thank the Leader of Government Business for government support for that minor amendment to this motion.
The call for urgent action on ice that opposition made some time ago now was in response to the very clear message we were hearing from Territorians that families were grappling with a tragic situation where the heavy impact of this insidious drug was literally tearing families apart. I note the Chief Minister mentioned the impact on families. In my local experience it has been the grandmothers who have been left to deal with caring for children of ice addicts, many of whom have ended up in our correctional services institution. At the end of the day this drug is illegal, as it should be, and they have, through their addiction, committed crimes because it is an expensive habit. Fuelled by their addiction they follow the path of crime and, quite appropriately, the police do their job. They are arrested, they are charged and due to the severity of their illegal behaviour they are gaoled. That scenario has been playing out across the Northern Territory and those remedies are appropriate.
However, we do not yet know how to best deal with the broken pieces of that family and the support they need because they are plunged into a crisis. We do not yet know how to deal with the preventative end to get public education awareness and at what level that should drill down to. For example, should it be a drug and awareness program in our middle schools? What appropriate measures can we take as a society to look at the preventative end?
One thing I have said publicly is there should be a single point of entry into the system for anyone who suspects their family member may be in the early stages of addiction to ice for support, help and advice. If you have early intervention you can hopefully avert the most heinous parts of this ice crisis, which are the increasing addiction and exhibition of violent behaviour which leads to violent crime, quite aside from the property crime escalation we are seeing in our community as a result of people trying to get money to feed their habit.
These are some of the things the select committee could get advice from an interagency task force that is hitting the ground running quickly. It could very genuinely embrace that and provide recommendations. I am pleased to see the terms of reference of the select committee covers all of these aspects. I am delighted there is reference to the spectrum from health, justice, drug and alcohol and law enforcement efforts. I am pleased to see that it will look at the social and community impacts of ice in urban, community and remote settings. I am very pleased reference (d) will look at responses in regard to prevention, education, family and individual support and withdrawal and treatment modalities. It recognises there are cross-border trafficking issues, local manufacture and derivation from legal pharmaceuticals and other legal precursors. It then calls for consideration of best practice workplace health and safety measures for those in the health system who come into contact with users of ice.
I urge the government to see this as urgent. Right now people at Royal Darwin Hospital are working in conditions that are unsafe when it comes to managing people in the grips of ice addiction presenting with a violent episode. We have an opportunity right now, with construction work being done at Royal Darwin Hospital, to expand the emergency department area. I have real concerns that we might miss the boat when a specification change to that construction work could accommodate an ice room. It does not need to wait until September. The evidence shows it exists as a tool in other emergency departments and trauma hospitals around Australia.
This is only meant in the best will and good spirit as an opportunity to make a meaningful improvement sooner rather than later to the way ice addicts are dealt with at Royal Darwin Hospital, which is the largest point of intake in the Northern Territory. That is what I have heard directly from medical practitioners not only in the ED, but also in the Cowdy Ward, where these clients are often referred. It does not have the same powers of restraint that the nurses in the ED have. It is a complex, problematic situation and all of the practitioners have urged for an ice room.
The Minister for Health is active and I am confident he could have these conversations to see whether or not modifications could be made to the construction scope of works currently under way at the Royal Darwin Hospital emergency department. You can be a doer ahead of the game. At the end of the day we will need safe places for people in the health system.
I urge bipartisan support to the motion this afternoon, because it is not an either/or issue. There are some things you can do while this select committee is under way. An interagency task force is a normal tool of government to bring departments together to have a shared, collective set of advice. It would be appropriate in regard to establishing the parliamentary select committee, because that interagency task force could drive the work, providing support and advice to the select committee while also identifying what actions can be taken within budget between now and September to improve the responses in the system.
The community has been looking for leadership in tackling this scourge head-on, and other governments have shown you need a coordinated action plan. The community wants government to work with community groups, the broader human services sector and non-government organisations on developing responses and treatment options.
I am delighted the member for Casuarina will represent opposition on this committee. She has knowledge of alcohol and other drugs treatment provision. She also has knowledge of mental health. Her working relationship – as the shadow minister for Mental Health Services, Disability Services and Children and Families – is established with the non-government organisation sector, which is crucial to supporting families and individuals. It is an appropriate appointment to the committee. It is an opportunity from our perspective for the member for Casuarina to gain insight into the work of health and police professionals in responses to practitioner issues. I thank the member for Casuarina for putting her hand up for this very important task.
The community is looking to ensure that service providers are well equipped and knowledgeable in how to deal with ice addiction. Workers on the front line want to know they have the best available information, as well as the right tools and protection in treating people under the influence of ice.
There is some knowledge about the scale of this threat. The 2011 National Drug Strategy report noted that crystal methamphetamine, or ice, first emerged in Australia in the early 1990s. By mid-2000 it had become a key feature of Australia’s illicit drug scene, coinciding with the shortage of heroin and large imports of crystal methamphetamine from Asia. It became attractive to drug users because it could be smoked or injected for rapid effect.
Studies estimate that the use of ice in Australia has increased 10% over the last three years. One study reports that 350 000 Australians smoked, snorted or injected crystal meth over the past 12 months. Crystal meth is also attractive to organised crime given its ease of manufacture and transport and the profits to be made.
In 2012-13 more than two tonnes of amphetamines was intercepted in the Australian mail system alone. Alarmingly about 90% of this drug is now produced locally in illicit drug labs. Northern Territory police estimate about 35% of ice in the Territory is produced locally. More than 10 labs were shut down by NT police last year.
In the most recent public NT Drug Trends report of 2013, key experts stated their concern on the increase in the availability, regular use and injection of crystal meth. They were concerned a market had become more established in the NT. Two-thirds of survey respondents for that NT survey reported crystal meth as ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to obtain.
In June last year the NT News highlighted the growing threat and impact of ice on the NT community. Detective Superintendent Peter Schiller from the Drug and Organised Crime Squad said the ice plague began here in about 2005. I quote him:
- It’s like they’re taking zombie tablets,’ he said.
‘The people who use it have violent turns of behaviour, they’re irrational and the energy displayed is very destructive.
He highlighted this disturbing fact:
- … you can guarantee the most damage is in the home ...
… a heroin addict will steal your telly, but he will not usually beat you up.
Unlike heroin, crystal meth does not usually kill the user, but it is others that are seriously harmed by users. Abusers often need to take higher doses so take it more regularly. Chronic abusers may develop difficulty feeling any pleasure other than that provided by the drug. Withdrawal includes depression, anxiety, fatigue and an intense craving for the drug. Chronic abusers exhibit symptoms that include anxiety, confusion, brain disturbances and violent behaviour. They may also display psychotic features including paranoia, visual and auditory hallucinations and delusions. Sadly, the psychotic symptoms sometimes last for months or years after a person has quit abusing. Study of chronic users also reveals severe structural and functional changes in areas of the brain accounting for emotional and cognitive problems.
We have heard the pleas of the ordinary Territorians. One woman told the NT News families affected include:
- … successful people, with families, partners, kids … - the lot. They now stand to lose everything they’ve worked so hard for. It all means nothing once someone is addicted to ice ...
- They’re very paranoid and a lot of people will spend three or four days on ice without sleeping and that’s what’s scary for us, they’re not rational. These people become violent very easily.
In November The Australian newspaper reported the findings of another NT report of Alcohol and Other Drugs not yet publicly released: direct evidence of injecting drug use in Borroloola; health centres concerned about increasing numbers of clients presenting who have used or been exposed to meth in Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin and Nhulunbuy; and in Darwin a sample of 447 clients revealed 22% identifying it as their primary drug of choice.
Police have told us non-Aboriginal staff are already using synthetic drugs in some larger remote settlements. There is evidence locals are experimenting. We need to heed this growing ice epidemic that can wreak so much harm in our community.
Victoria established and undertook a Royal Commission into the ice epidemic. In the last 12-month period in Victoria there were more than 3200 meth-related assaults and almost 4000 burglaries.
Terry Goldsworthy, the Assistant Professor of Criminology at Bond University said
- The solution to dealing with the ice problem will not be simple, nor short-term. It will need to be a sustained long-term strategy, using education, harm-reduction strategies, healthcare responses and aggressive law enforcement strategies.
That is why we believe there is a need for that interagency task force.
The Victorian government has recently released an Ice Action Plan. I will table the Ice Action Plan. I note that the action plan is identified into six categories. The first is Helping Families. It has committed $4.7m in additional support for families and communities to prevent and address ice use and a new dedicated ice helpline, a one-stop shop that directs families and health professionals to the support they need. The second category is Supporting Frontline Workers with $1m for training courses to give frontline workers the skills they need to deal with users and expand clinical supervision training. The third category is More Support, Where It’s Needed, with $18m to expand drug treatment focusing on rehabilitation for users in rural and regional areas, and $1.8m for needle and syringe programs to make harm reduction more effective. The fourth category is Prevention is Better than a Cure, supporting skills and creating more jobs, education campaigns that target people who are most at risk, and smarter use of technology. Category five is Reducing Supply on our Streets with $4.5m to expand Victoria’s police forensic analysis capability to shut down clandestine laboratories. Category six is Safer, Stronger Communities with $15m for new drug and booze buses to get ice users off the road, and $500 000 to support the work of people who know their communities best.
I am not proposing we have the same scale as Victoria, nor am I proposing the figures contained in the Victorian response would be the appropriate funding required in the Northern Territory. I am saying jurisdictions which have gone on the journey before us have had a Royal Commission, so there is a body of evidence the select committee could turn its mind to. The Northern Territory, having its own unique circumstances, I daresay would have unique responses as well.
I seek leave to table the Ice Action Plan of the state government of Victoria.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: Some of the things we have come to understand about this ice epidemic are the grief expressed by Territory families and frontline workers, the need for a coordinated plan in response, and for that to include prevention, treatment, harm-reduction strategies and justice and law enforcement responses.
The last six months has seen an explosion in property-related crime across the Territory. Our police have attributed part of this rise to the increased use of ice. A comparison of those figures for 2013-14 show that in just the last 12 months house break-ins have increased 49% in Darwin and motor vehicle theft 22.8%. In Palmerston, break-ins for houses were 34.3%, commercial break-ins a 98.8% increase and motor vehicle theft a 44.9% increase. Looking at just the past 12 months in Palmerston, 500 motor vehicle thefts is the highest it has ever been. We have seen 1903 assaults in Darwin, the highest it has ever been, and 131 commercial break-ins in Katherine, the highest it has ever been. We know 2013 was a high year for crime against the person, but overall crime against the person has increased by 10.8% in the Territory in the past year. The data is screaming for a response to the ice epidemic so I am pleased the select committee has been established.
I note with concern the Department of Health annual report shows a $2.5m reduction in Alcohol and Other Drugs funding for 2014-15 and a budget underspend of $17m in 2013-14. I draw the Health minister’s attention to this. It is pretty important that we have an AOD sector capacity for a response to this scourge.
Territorians, strong proud people, have voiced their pleas saying there is no help for them in their struggle to deal with the meth use by their loved ones. Grandmothers have organised themselves into a group crying out for help. They worry the only safe place for their kids and grandkids affected by ice is gaol and ask why it should come to that; commit a crime to go to gaol. They have been alarmed there are no specialist meth treatment centres in the NT.
My colleague, the member for Casuarina, has noted in debate in this Chamber that the direction of the government in regard to the Chief Minister’s statement last sittings was contained in only four lines under the title ‘Helping Vulnerable Territorians’. Perhaps this select committee marks a change in that direction, so we can reach out and help incredibly vulnerable Territorians through the good work of this parliamentary select committee.
The Northern Territory AMA President, psychiatrist Rob Parker, said in relation to the need for an ice room at RDH:
- ‘These people are very sick and need a high level of observation.
‘The level of aggressiveness and lack of insight means they are dangerous to themselves and to others.’
He also said that the spread of meth is putting intense pressure on hospitals and we are seeing a significant rise in people developing psychosis from amphetamine use.
We know an unstable person, liable to do anything at any moment, might require strong security to contain them and protect health staff. This is why we are seeking a specific response in regard to the ice room at Royal Darwin Hospital.
I thank the government for heeding the calls of the opposition and our community to take action on the scourge of ice in the Territory. I recognise the scope of the debate from law enforcement through to health, but add to that community and agency support for families and individuals affected by ice users. That should not be missed and I deeply encourage a strong response in prevention. The children in our school systems are open and aware. Surely we can turn some attention towards giving them real facts and information, which I pray and hope means they say no when offered a taste of this destructive crystal meth.
Madam Speaker, I urge the committee to work across our communities and listen, attend with an open mind, but also rely on best evidence and practice. Good luck with the work.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support of this motion.
The other day I attended a public meeting at the Malak shops, where I met many parents and grandparents who were looking after kids affected by ice. I place this into a contextual arrangement: one things I want out of this committee is to determine the actual depth of the problem.
I recall as a police officer in the 1980s, PCP – or angel dust as it was called at the time – was a scourge which would end the world. Doubtlessly it had a very serious impact, but that came and went. In the 1990s it was crack cocaine, which was a stimulant similar to ice and one of the variant forms of speed, which would end the world. Then the methamphetamines in their powdered forms for injection started to arrive which caused a great deal of concern, as it should have. Nowadays, in the mid-2010s, another variant form of methamphetamine is making an appearance in its crystallised form so it can be smoked.
I reminded people at that meeting that whilst I was in no way diminishing their care and concern for their loved ones and children, which was heartfelt and genuine, I wanted to place the use of those drugs in the context that for as long as humans have been humans a percentage of the population has always tried to find some form of intoxication and become intoxicated. I suspect if you lined up all of the forms of licit and illicit drugs available in the marketplace today, it is very unlikely you would choose the two that have become legalised drugs: alcohol or tobacco. Nevertheless, those are the two legal drugs we have allowed in our community, largely because we have become used to them.
There is, however, a useful exercise in creating a distinction between the stimulants you find in ice and alcohol and tobacco. It is also useful to look at some parallels that are worthwhile examining. In distinctions, the drugs of choice of the 1970s – particularly heroin which was very fashionable in the 1970s and 1980s and it is still out there to a much lower level nowadays – whilst they had a very quick effect, were depressant. In fact, alcohol is a depressant. Mind you, on Mitchell Street you could be forgiven for thinking it was not. As a depressant drug it has a more profound effect on our community today than all of the illicit drugs gathered together.
Tobacco, of course, is the vehicle by which we deliver nicotine into our systems. There is an interesting parallel between tobacco and ice. Anybody who has ever smoked would know that as a drug delivery system the interface of the aioli in the lungs and the bloodstream is extraordinary. In fact, if you were to take the surface area of aioli in the lungs and lay them out you would cover the area of a tennis court. This means when you inhale a cigarette and fill your lungs with nicotine-laced cigarette smoke, the effect of the drug on your system and brain is pretty much instantaneous.
Anybody who remembers their first drag on a cigarette after which they sat with their head buzzing knows the transition from drawing on the cigarette and having the drug delivered to the brain is almost immediate. I understand ice has exactly the same effect. The reasons it is becoming popular in its smoked form is (1) it is very easy to smoke the drug as you do not have to source injecting equipment, but (2) as a drug delivery system, smoking is probably one of the most effective and is equal to injection. It is perhaps even more effective than injection depending on the chemical used.
As I said, a percentage of the population has always sought out these types of drugs and found themselves in a situation where they become addicted.
It was always surprising to me when I read documents on drugs like heroin that there was a large number of ‘recreational’ users of heroin. In fact the vast majority of people who have used heroin historically have been recreational users. The reason we do not see them lying in our parks and gardens is because they do not display the addictive nature which seems to be peculiar to a percentage of the population. An addicted heroin user lying in a park is indistinguishable to me from an alcoholic lying in a park. It seems the individual, if they have developed an addiction for a particular drug, will choose to pursue that addiction into the gates of prison, insanity or even death.
Ice is making its presence felt in the Northern Territory. The anecdotal evidence seems to be that ice is being used by an increasing number of people. The problem is, in its smoked form it becomes a very quick rush indeed. As a consequence, those people who become addicted to the drug become addicted very quickly. The transition from normal human being to an emaciated, wasted mess occurs in months, not years, as is the case with many other drugs. I suspect one of the reasons the drug is considered so confronting is because the transition from healthy to addicted wreck is so sharply defined by a short passage of time. I invite members to look at some of the transition mug shots available on YouTube on their computers to see how quickly the transition occurs. There are some very ghastly photographs there.
The other issue is this drug creates a very apparent health problem. What occurs when a person starts to use the drug addictively is degeneration of skin and teeth, a slack-jawed, vacant look and, of course, the indifference to their own health and hygiene in pursuit of the next hit.
As a parent or grandparent I image seeing your daughter or grandchild addicted to something that makes such a profound physiological impact would be traumatic, but nowhere near as traumatic as the psychological impact that also becomes manifest. Because this drug gathers momentum amongst its addicted users so quickly the psychotic episodes described by the Leader of the Opposition are also very confronting. Those psychotic episodes often will bring the addict either to the attention of the police or, alternatively, the health system.
As Minister for Mental Health Services I have been very mindful that there is a relationship between mental health services and the criminal justice system which needs some attention. I hope, through the budget process, we will be able to find some money to make some inroads there.
I also heard the Leader of the Opposition’s call for an ice room. I wish to correct the Leader of the Opposition on some information she has received. The powers to restrain a person in accident and emergency are precisely the same powers used to restrain a person in Cowdy Ward if restraint is required. The powers are granted by the Mental Health and Related Services Act. Where a person presents having a psychotic episode, whether they are in accident and emergency, a ward or Cowdy Ward, those powers are precisely the same. There is no distinction in the mental health legislation of the Northern Territory as to where those powers should be used. Those powers exist quite correctly to protect a person from themselves, or alternatively to protect society from that person.
I have listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition’s rationale for calling for an ‘ice room’. She confirms, in my mind, the reservation I have in relation to calling it an ‘ice room’. The Leader of the Opposition’s argument is that when a person addicted to ice presents then they will have some form of behaviour which will be revealed through a psychotic presentation or, alternatively, some sort of paranoid delusion which will make that person violent. I do not dispute that is correct.
The only reason I would be a little hesitant about calling it an ‘ice room’, even if we go down that path, is by its nature it would preclude other forms of psychosis. If we go down that path – it is still under advice – then the question would be why call it an ‘ice room’. If a psychotic episode was brought on because of some other degenerative condition – perhaps by the use of alcohol, a manifestation of schizophrenia or another drug of addiction – calling it an ‘ice room’ would make it inappropriate for a person if the psychotic presentation had nothing to do with ice.
It is good politics, no doubt about it. I would prefer to have a room, if we were to do such a thing, to describe the behaviour we were trying to target, irrespective of whether the psychosis was a result of the presence of ice or another reason. The Leader of the Opposition is focusing on the nature of the behaviour of a person having a psychotic episode. To call it an ‘ice room’ would limit other people using it and I do not think that would be fair.
I am not discounting that. However, I have been to Cowdy Ward and accident and emergency on a number of occasions and spoken to many of the practitioners. One of the sad problems we have is manifestation of the nature of randomness in that it clumps. If you look at a Keno board in a pub you will often be surprised that as the numbers come up they tend to clump together in little groups. It does not look random, but that is how randomness becomes manifest. A number of scientific papers have been written on the nature of randomness, and the fact in the first instance it does not appear to be random at all.
It is similarly so with the presentation of random ice users to police or the health system. The frustration amongst some of the workers in Cowdy Ward is we have the capacity to restrain these people within that ward and can move them reasonably easily from the accident and emergency section to the ward, but if three or four people come in through the door that presents a challenge because there is a limit in the capacity to contain that many presentations at once. That is something I am looking at and am mindful of.
When I went to the Cowdy Ward to visit this plague of ice users, there were no ice users being restrained. That is also the nature of randomness. I could have gone there two days later and there could well have been three or four people present.
As a consequence of those observations, I need to determine the depth of the problem. Whilst it is anecdotal, there are other sources of evidence – I will ask the Health department to give this evidence to the inquiry – which suggests methamphetamine use presentations have not substantially changed over the last few years. However, when that information was presented to me, I was told it was suspected that some forms of methamphetamines have become less prevalent, and as a consequence there was an increase in the number of presentations of the crystal meth – or ice – variant of methamphetamines. I accept that; it tells me that the overall numbers may not necessarily be changing, but the presentations of ice alone are changing. I would like this committee to look at that because you must identify a problem accurately in an effort to respond to it.
The other problem I have with any form of illicit drug in our community is it can and does generate criminal activity. This invites conversation about the nature of how we manage drugs in our community. Some would simply say we are making a mistake by making any drug illicit, and by doing so we create a substantial organised crime structure. There is an element of truth in the creating of organised crime structure. Organised crime in the United States was a fairly remote and unusual thing up until the 1930s, when prohibition came into operation. Mind you, in the United States – in those days and still to a degree today – you are held responsible for your actions. You could develop an addiction to any of the variant drugs that were lawful at the time – heroin in the form of laudanum, cocaine in a popular brand of soft drink, cannabis was freely available up until the early 1900s and, of course, alcohol which was ultimately banned. There was little to create a black market around.
However, after the banning of alcohol there was the manifestation of crime syndicates such as the organisations headed by the Al Capones of the world during the 1930s. Subsequent to the 1930s, particularly after World War II, pushing into the 1950s and 1960s, the focus moved from the now again legal alcohol to the supply of other drugs. It continues to be a major industry in the United States.
This is what drives the comments from many people suggesting we are going about this incorrectly and we should respond to drug abuse in our community not as criminal conduct but some health issue, and not necessarily make it all illegal. The argument is that even where certain types of drugs have been made lawful – Holland is an example where cannabis is freely obtained over the counter and smoked, and in Colorado and other places – there is not a great increase in addiction.
I used to have a great deal of sympathy for that position. However, I looked very closely at what has been happening in Colorado. Perhaps it will settle down, but curiously there is still a substantial black market in the cannabinoids in Colorado which is causing any number of problems. That black market is for those people who cannot lawfully obtain cannabis. A person will walk into a shop, purchase some cannabis, walk out of the shop and sell that cannabis at a substantial profit to the nearest person who cannot obtain that cannabis. Of course, that person will be somebody under the age of 21 years of age.
Regulation then becomes an issue. You then ask how we regulate this thing. Even our community of course ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly. I am sorry, I did not realise I had spoken for so long.
The use of alcohol regulations in our community is an ongoing problem. We try to regulate it. It is freely available. If I wanted to I could possess alcohol this morning or this afternoon by buying it. We have a Liquor Act which is equally as thick as our Criminal Code Act, and we still struggle with the net effects.
Here is the truth of it. Whilst calls for the legalisation may have some rationale, there is a societal expectation from the mums and dads that these drugs remain illegal and we as a community will continue policing these drugs aggressively. I agree. For that reason, recently with the support of all members of this House – and I again express my gratitude – I turned methamphetamines from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 2 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The reason we chose to do so is we decided it was not a cannabinoid or one of the more benign forms of drugs, it was a drug which was as destructive in our community – in fact, we would agree I suspect in this House at the moment more destructive – than heroin.
As a consequence of accepting this notion we will, as a government, continue to push hard laws. In recent times, I was with the Solicitor-General in the High Court in Canberra fighting the matter of Emerson where we are taking drug dealers’ houses from them. We will continue to do so because fines that are levied go nowhere near replacing the amount of money we spend on policing these illicit substances. In fact, even when we take their houses from them we still spend vastly more on policing than we will ever recover in property.
Frankly, if you are a declared drug dealer I do not care whether or not the house was the product of your illicit trade. If you have the property in your possession it should be forfeited because that is what the public expects. Of course, when there is a marketplace there is a supplier, and that is what happens with ice.
As I said earlier, I attended a meeting in Malak recently. Donna Hunter was there. I thank her, Natalie Hunter and the other parents who attended for their input in relation to this. I attended with the minister for Police, Peter Chandler. I place on the record my gratitude to those parents, not only as a member of this parliament but also as a member of the community. Clearly they care about what is happening to their families.
They suggested and we accepted the idea that a parliamentary committee such as the one held in Victoria, referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition, would be valuable in describing the nature of the problem we have and the response we should make as a community. As a consequence we are now in this House. I place on the record my thanks to those ladies on that committee for the establishment of this committee to look into the prevalence, nature and impact ice has on our community.
I support the motion brought on by the Chief Minister, Adam Giles. I am not sure if we have to go through the necessary steps of amending the motion because we will accept, on face value, the member for Casuarina rather than the member for Nhulunbuy on that committee. I will take some guidance from the Clerk in regard to process, but I suspect nobody will raise an objection to the amendment.
Madam Speaker, as a consequence, I look forward to the report of this important committee to this House, and the guidance this committee will give government in how we deal with this issue in our community. I hope we are not afraid to be stridently firm in our response as a government and a community. If it means the committee comes to a conclusion that we continue to deal with both the users and the providers as criminals, I would personally welcome that.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate in relation to establishment of a parliamentary committee on ice. I take the role of being on the committee very seriously and understand the important and huge amount of work we have ahead of us. I am pleased and look forward to being part of that over the coming months.
I commend the community because people have been so vocal on this issue over quite a significant period of time. There have been many public meetings held specifically on the issue of ice, as have been referred to by various members of this House. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for raising the issue and calling for action before and during our sittings in February. This was a result of significant community concern from both families and organisations, all seeing the impacts of this substance which has the potential to, and is, devastating lives across the Territory. A GBD item which came about as the direct result of the pleas of the community was to be carried over from the February sittings in relation to this.
I commend the CLP government for the announcement yesterday of a parliamentary committee to look at the evidence surrounding ice in our community and our potential responses. While it did not go as far as the interagency task force that was suggested, it is a step forward in having a proper dialogue about this issue. I know many members of the community have been waiting for that.
One of the reasons the task force was suggested is we need to be talking to those who see these issues on a daily basis. They know them inside out; they are the experts. They already have some recommendations for things we need to be doing now. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of balance. This does not stop us from doing things that need to be done now, because consultation about this issue needs to take into account what needs to be done in the long term to stem the use of ice and its impacts on the community.
We also need to take into account how we stop this from becoming a crisis. As the Leader of the Opposition put it, we need to make sure we do not miss the boat when considering the needs of the sector and the community in current project and budget planning. This is very important. The work the committee does not stop us from looking at the existing evidence that supports immediate action.
In regard to the suggestion of the ice room, there has already been discussion about what the ice room will be called and whether or not the resource could be used. Regardless of the semantics of the name of the ice room, it is very positive that we are talking about potential solutions and resources to help our health practitioners do their work in a safe and effective way. We need to continue to discuss and investigate this.
I recall speaking to Turning Point, which is an organisation based in Melbourne, about two years ago. It runs the NT Alcohol and Other Drug Service, which many other services here rely on as a referral point. The service provides 24-hour telephone counselling on a range of different issues. The national increase of people seeking help for personal use of this drug, or for advice about others’ use, was noted two years ago. In our community it has risen dramatically in a short period of time. I note on their website in May last year, in response to the issue of ice in Victoria, they called for a community approach on this issue.
Which framework to use has been raised today. Does this fit into the justice, health, or community framework? That is an important conversation to have. I imagine our consultations with the experts will point us in the direction of which framework is most appropriate.
I add food for thought. Within a harm-minimisation model the National Drug Strategy 2010-2015 currently adopts, each of the reference frameworks has a place. The three arms of harm-minimisation – harm reduction, supply reduction and demand reduction – are all highly accepted in drug strategies these days. They are all essential to reducing the impacts of any drug, including alcohol. They require an integrated response in which each of the different frameworks – health, justice, the social sector and the broader community – all come together and interact to play a role in reducing harm from drugs such as ice or alcohol, as the member for Port Darwin discussed. These partnerships must not only be encouraged but supported through policy and practice.
As mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, I have worked in different roles regarding these issues. I was working with police in an early intervention alcohol program where one of the trickiest things was getting the different frameworks to interact. It is easy to look at issues through one lens – whether that is Justice or Health – but we need to ensure these systems are interacting and looking at the issues and people as a whole.
I hope the committee can look at encouraging different sectors to work together and get the community involved in reducing the harms of ice. There are many community-based organisations already convening meetings in relation to the impact of ice on families. Many organisations are seeing the rise of ice use in the clients accessing their services. It is timely we are a part of that meaningful conversation in this way.
One of these groups is the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network which has held at least two public community meetings in relation to ice. This shows the important crossover between issues. I will touch on something raised by the member for Port Darwin and me previously in this House. There are often connections between substance abuse and mental health. We do not address that very well. Potentially, there is also a greater need for integrated responses around such issues.
It goes without saying we are hopeful time frames for this inquiry allow for adequate and effective responses to be taken into account in budget planning, so any recommendations that come out of this committee are taken seriously and can be implemented. It should be noted that the original proposal from the Leader of the Opposition was that action would be swift given the rapid rise in use our families and stakeholders are seeing and dealing with, and should take into account the perspectives of a large range of experts from health, social, justice and law enforcement sectors and our community. The community wants to discuss solutions. There is a sense of urgency because this issue is entering Territory homes and impacts on a range of different people for a range of reasons.
Ice is but one substance of concern for the community. I hope the committee will not only look at this substance as an isolated beast, but also within the context of availability, and importantly the reasons why Territorians are turning to such illicit substances.
The recent public NT Drug Trends report in 2013 saw experts share their concerns about the availability of crystal methamphetamine and showed that a market was more established in the Northern Territory, with two-thirds of the survey responding that it was ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to obtain.
There is a range of reasons why people take illicit drugs, from those whose use is often described as recreational, those who self-medicate and those who experience high levels of addiction. The results can be tragic: death, injury and chronic illness. We have heard today some of the many different things that happen to people who misuse ice …
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Casuarina, can I just interrupt to welcome some visitors.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Year 6 Palmerston Christian School accompanied by Megan Kennedy. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Ms MOSS: … harm to others including to children and withdrawal from home life, work life and education. When we are talking to experts I hope we talk to those who are also involved in service provision to children and families.
One of the reports I will be having another look at is the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education’s report, The Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harms to Others. I know this is about alcohol, but there is a great deal of useful information in it, particularly about the impact alcohol misuse has on other people from people within a user’s home, to the children, to strangers. The number of substantiated child protection cases that come from that alcohol misuse is huge. That is a good resource to use to decide how we need to address these issues.
Further, there is a ripple effect in the things people who misuse a drug like ice might be doing to pay for the drugs they are using. Last night a number of us spoke specifically about escalating property crime around Darwin and Palmerston. The committee will do well to investigate the intercepts between many of these issues. There is much evidence about crime and ice use we are currently seeing, and also the prevalence of poly-drug use.
We need to hear from experts about the potential community responses, from community education and prevention right through the spectrum to how we deal with families who are in crisis and how we support those people. I have no doubt there are many stakeholders, including community members, who have firsthand experience of the impacts of ice who will also welcome this announcement and be hopeful of the opportunity to contribute to the dialogue.
I note that NTCOSS and Amity are among those which have already welcomed the announcement of the establishment of this committee. Given the services which are reporting an increase in the number of people using ice they are seeing as clients, I expect there will also be many more. Hopefully through this committee there can be tools and resources identified that will help those on the front line to protect those who are under the influence of ice.
A growing number of community members are seeing the harsh effects of chronic use of crystal methamphetamine so Labor welcomes action on seeking potential responses to this issue. I reiterate that we want to be sure that recommendations identified are considered seriously for implementation when they are released in September, and stakeholders are kept informed of the progress of the committee given that this is such an important and personal topic for many members of the broader Northern Territory community.
It is also important that we get to regional areas to get the full context of the depth of this issue in the Northern Territory and make sure we are listening to what the community and those who work amongst these issues everyday are saying.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the House. I am looking forward to having those discussions with the committee.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, the author of this quote is unknown:
- I destroy homes, I tear families apart,
I take your children, and that’s just the start.
I’m more costly than diamonds, more precious than gold,
The sorrow I bring is a sight to behold.
If you need me, remember I’m easily found,
I live all around you – in schools and in town.
I live with the rich, I live with the poor,
I live down the street, and maybe next door.
I’m made in a lab, but not like you think,
I can be made under the kitchen sink.
In your child’s closet, and even in the woods,
If this scares you to death, well it certainly should.
I have many names, but there’s one you know best,
I’m sure you’ve heard of me, my name is crystal meth.
My power is awesome, try me you’ll see,
But if you do, you may never break free.
Just try me once and I might let you go,
But try me twice, and I’ll own your soul.
When I possess you, you’ll steal and you’ll lie,
You do what you have to – just to get high.
The crimes you’ll commit from my narcotic charms,
Will be worth the pleasure you’ll feel in your arms.
You’ll lie to your mother, you’ll steal from your dad,
When you see their tears, you should feel sad.
But you’ll forget your morals and how you were raised,
I’ll be your conscience, I’ll teach you my ways.
I take kids from parents, and parents from kids,
I turn people from God, and separate friends.
I’ll take everything from you, your looks and your pride,
I’ll be with you always – right by your side.
You’ll give up everything – your family, your home,
Your friends, your money, then you’ll be alone.
I’ll take and take, till you have nothing more to give,
When I’m finished with you, you’ll be lucky to live.
If you try me be warned – this is no game,
If given the chance, I’ll drive you insane.
I’ll ravish your body, I’ll control your mind,
I’ll own you completely, your sole will be mine.
The nightmares I’ll give you while lying in bed,
The voices you’ll hear, from inside your head.
The sweats, the shakes, the visions you’ll see,
I want you to know, these are all gifts from me.
But then it’s too late, and you’ll know in your heart,
That you are mine, and we shall not part.
You’ll regret that you tried me, they always do,
But then you came to me, not I to you.
You knew this would happen, many times you were told,
But you challenged my power, and I chose to be bold.
You could have said no, and just walked away,
If you could live that day over, now what would you say?
I’ll be your master, you will be my slave,
I’ll even go with you, when you go to your grave.
Now that you have met me, what will you do?
Will you try me or not? It’s all up to you.
I can bring you more misery than words can tell,
Come take my hand, let me lead you to hell.
When doing some research into crystal meth and having personal experience of friends, colleagues and family involved, you know how powerful this drug is.
With my good friend the Attorney-General, John Elferink, I attended a meeting only a few weeks ago in Malak and heard firsthand the experience from not only the families that are involved, but also from users who had beaten the habit. In fact one gentleman, John if memory serves me right, had been involved with meth for over 10 years. It had stolen his life for 10 years. It had taken him 10 years to rid himself of the problem his life became under the control of this substance. He explicitly detailed some things he had put his family through and what it did to his life. It was an eye opener for me to hear these stories. John and I had a discussion afterwards.
We spoke with the Chief Minister and Cabinet about this drug and what approach the government should be taking. The committee will provide some further guidance in what approach we should take. I agree with what has been said on both sides of the House today; that the approach needs to be swift, careful and stepped through.
That is not to say the government is not already working in this space. The member for Port Darwin spoke about some things the government was doing in the health area, but more about the drug itself. In my mind, government needs to take an approach that covers not only how to provide the right services for users of meth, but also training and support for those staff members on the front line working with these people, seeing how they present into our health and police systems.
I am not trying to pre-empt what the committee will recommend, but I hope it will come up with some recommendations on how we can introduce messages, such as the poem I just read, into our education system earlier. The only real way to defeat drugs such as meth is through education and stopping somebody in the first place, because once they have a taste of this stuff, in many circumstances they are hooked. For the benefit of the community, the only true way we will ever win is individually, with each person we can prevent from going down that path in the first place.
I have some facts about ice in front of me, as well as some of the things government is doing. I do not want to say that government is not taking action, because we are in this regard, but the committee will hopefully provide us with more advice.
Before I move to these statistics, I applaud the member for Blain, Nathan Barrett, for wanting to chair this committee. This will be a tough one, but I have every confidence in his leadership in finding out the approaches taken by other jurisdictions, as well as the best approach for the Northern Territory government. That will not be easy. Nathan, I will provide you as much support as I possibly can as minister for Police. I acknowledge how tough it will be given the circumstances in the Territory. We not only have to focus on cities, but have the tough challenge of dealing with meth use in remote communities. You have a big task ahead of you. Again, I offer my support where I can.
Anecdotal evidence from the law enforcement and treatment providers confirms that ice use by dose and user figures is increasing. The highly-addictive properties of ice result in users quickly becoming addicted and needing to access more of the drug to satisfy their drug-seeking urges. The high price paid for ice in dollar terms means people using this drug will resort to other offending to feed that addiction, as with many drugs. The nexus between property crime and illicit drug use is clearly identified, and the trading of stolen goods to support a habit is not uncommon. Other offending which goes with drug abuse is often violence, whether perpetrated on family members or other community members. Drug users are volatile and may react in ways that cause significant harm and injury, often with children present.
In response to this, the Northern Territory police has several policing strategies and methodologies that is employed to tackle illicit drug use and supply. The Drug and Organised Crime Division has three teams that form a targeted policing response: a dedicated ATS team with drug and organised crime; a specialised unit trained in the detection and dismantling of clandestine laboratories (clan labs) – this unit also provides training to other police such as general duties officers to identify drug paraphernalia that indicates potential presence of clan labs; and Gang Task Force is responsible for the investigation and enforcement of outlaw motorcycle gangs, organised crime groups and other criminal syndicates. Additionally, the team is responsible for coordinating the response to the national organised crime enforcement bodies and joint task forces as they arrive.
The task force encompasses members from the Australian Federal Police National Anti-Gangs Squad and operates in partnership with the national objectives to detect, disrupt and dismantle organised crime within the Northern Territory and Australia. Intel provides tactical- and strategic-level intelligence assistance in all avenues of crime within the Northern Territory and Australia. Members are co-located in the majority of investigative sections in a supportive role defined as field intelligence officers. These members provide specialised technical- and intelligence-related analysis. Field officers are supported by the operation of an intelligence section which provides greater level analytical support including strategically orientated analysis to divisional managers and the executive group.
Ice use and the resultant harms to the community is a priority of the Northern Territory police. The abuse of ice is a national issue and localised responses are under development across all jurisdictions. A key priority is effectively engaging people regarding the harms of ice before they become users, as the addiction rates with this substance are higher than has been seen historically with similar substances.
Drug traffickers and organised crime groups continue to target the Northern Territory market, in part due to the significant financial return gained in some remote parts of the Northern Territory and a high demand for illicit substances by a young cash-rich user group of labourers and tradesmen. The Northern Territory Police Force continues to successfully cause disruption to the illicit drug supply trade, with dedicated drug and organised crime squads and a regionalised drug desk and intelligence operatives facilitating a response against illicit substances.
Drug traffickers may operate independently or as part of a wider organised crime network that includes activities within other jurisdictions. Offences involving drug trafficking, supply and manufacture often involve other offences. Violent offending includes weapon use and is commonplace among chronic meth users and organised crime activity including violence, extortion and firearm offences. Violent crime and death related to the use and supply of ice and new psychoactive substances in the NT is on the increase.
The volume of amphetamine-type substances intercepted is almost double that of the previous financial year. The 2014 figures to date are trending to a further increase in these figures. Clandestine laboratory activity is increasing with Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services successfully disrupting production of at least six sites in the past six months. Intensive targeting of drug manufacturers remains a high priority.
Indigenous communities remain a destination of choice for many drug traffickers. These communities experience a high demand for substances such as cannabis, kava and alcohol and profit margins are considerable. Recent seizures have impacted on kava supply. However, traffickers will continue targeting vulnerable communities for profit. These traffickers are predominantly of Tongan ethnicity from eastern states. Northern Territory police will continue to employ intelligence-led targeting strategies to maximise the results obtained.
The NT has a sound assets forfeiture regime that targets the assets of the criminals used or derived through crime and unexplained wealth.
The Northern Territory police remain committed to a reduction in crime and will continue to target drug-related secondary crimes such as stealing and trading in stolen goods. Emerging illicit drug supply and use trends are examined to inform policing strategies in keeping communities safe from illicit drug presence in the community, and to target dangerous drugs supply.
Through policy development and evaluation the Northern Territory police will ensure relevant legislation is contemporary and reflective of the level of harm these substances bring to our community. Current reform proposals are in the final stages of drafting for consideration and include firearm offences, particularly where illicit drug involvement exists, dismantling organised crime activity and violent offending and amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act for repeat or organised drug traffic offences.
In summary, I am glad this committee appears to have bipartisan support. There is a lot to be done. This drug appears to be making its presence felt not only in the Northern Territory, but across Australia, and in fact the world. Anything governments can do to improve the system for everybody – that is how we police it, how we educate people and how we treat people and provide support services for families – should be supported. We will be searching high, low, and as far and wide as possible to find that information by looking at other jurisdictions and things done around the world, taking into account our circumstances in the NT including remoteness and some of the issues that could be faced if ice was to get a real foothold in some of our remote communities.
I take my hat off to the committee and the chair, the member for Blain, for taking this challenge on and for the bipartisan support it appears to have to ensure we work together to find an approach this government can use to get on top of such an horrendous issue.
To those people John and I met recently, again thank you for sharing your stories and giving us insight into what it was like to have a family member involved with this drug and how it ripped at the very core of that family. For the people who shared their story, thank you. Thank you to Donna Hunter and the others involved in that meeting. Let us work together and see if we can solve this.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion to the Assembly.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. Drugs and alcohol are having a significant impact on remote and regional communities. This is not new. Issues with addiction have been going on for decades. It is one of the biggest killers of Indigenous people each year.
Today the drugs of choice are alcohol, marijuana and to a growing extent sniffing of volatile substances. With each of these substances governments of all colours have been behind the eight ball and trying to deal with the abuse of these substances.
This government is making a strong move to address this issue. Today with this motion of establishing the select committee, we have the opportunity to get ahead of the game when it comes to ice and minimise its impact on our community. The terms of reference will allow us to find out what impact it is already having, what measures are currently in place for recording its impact and whether people who use and abuse ice are treated both in the health and the justice system. This committee will also allow us to access the responses of other states to this substance.
Madam Speaker, my knowledge of this drug is limited to what I have been told by my constituents and people on the street. I look forward to hearing from a range of stakeholders and learning more about this terrible drug so we can prevent and treat this abuse.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the member for Arafura in what he just said. I also do not know a lot about ice, only the stuff you put in a drink to keep it cold, but that is about all. I have read plenty in the media. Today’s NT News has an article headed ‘Action overdue on meth curse’.
I want to keep a fairly open mind on this. I have done some work because the opposition will present a motion today on the issue of ice. I have spoken to people at Amity and Banyan House, and I thank them for the information they have provided. I have received detailed information from them which has given me a base level of knowledge to start with.
We must make sure if we are to do this properly we have enough staff to help, because there are many committees already established at present. I would hate to overload the staff to a point where the quality of our recommendations at the end of this is compromised. We have not finished the petrol pricing inquiry, the energy inquiry or the port inquiry and this inquiry and other committees will be on the run. We also have estimates coming up after the budget. So many things are happening. I am not complaining about the workload, but I am more concerned the government will ensure there is enough staff so these reports are all done without staff being overworked; I do not think that would help the situation. We need a good quality report to this parliament.
A number of reports have already been done. There is the NT Drug Trends 2013: Findings from the Illicit Drug Reporting System, Australian Drug Trends Series No 116, by C Moon. This has a series of articles dealing with methamphetamine, or ice. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Victorian report, but it is interesting to read the magazine called Of Substance. This is from November 2014, the title of the article is ‘Ice Epidemic: Fact or Fiction?’ It has some interesting material, but it also mentions the Victorian parliament’s inquiry into the supply and use of methamphetamines, particularly ice, and has a series of recommendations.
We need to ensure we are across all of the existing reports before we try to write our own. We do not want to repeat inquiries. We need to look specifically at the Northern Territory’s case, using some of the experiences from other states to see where we fit into the whole picture of concern, not only in the Territory, but in other states.
One impression I got from my meetings with the two groups was there is a tendency for people already using drugs to shift to ice. It is not certain whether it is an increase in the number of people using drugs, or in the type of drug that drug users are on. That was mentioned to me in my discussions with people at Amity and Banyan House. We have to look at these things and find out whether they are the facts.
I hope the committee looks at the relationship between ice and domestic violence. It is something I raised with these groups. I get the impression it possibly is one of the major factors. It can be from the victim’s and the perpetrator’s point of view …
_______________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from two Year 5/6 classes from Malak Primary School accompanied by Lorraine Kingham, Zowie Sumendra, Cathy Mauboy and Christine Milne. Welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________________
Mr WOOD: I have the impression there has been a relationship between the use of ice and domestic violence. Domestic violence is one of those things the police are cracking down on. I am not sure what the figures are, but it appears to me we are struggling against the curse of domestic violence. It will be interesting to see if there is a correlation between that and the increase in the use of this drug. From the figures I have in front of me, six or seven years ago this was not a major concern.
This is a new very potent form of amphetamine. Someone told me there is a part of your brain which – I did write down what it was called – is the pleasure sensors. With alcohol, yes, drink a bit more alcohol and you feel good. With cocaine, you feel about 400 times better. But with ice you feel about 1500 times better. That is the danger with this. It gives people a huge kick and feeling of pleasure. Then it has all those downsides the member for Brennan mentioned. So it is a drug that tempts you in then has consequences you may or may not realise which can cause major problems, not only to your own health but to other people’s health and to people like the police who might have to try to pick you up when you are in a state where you think you are bigger than Ben Hur.
It also has an effect in employment. People using it on work sites think they can work really well. They take it as a drug that makes them feel they can do lots of things on the job. But there is a downside to it, as we know.
The member for Blain wants to speak. I will not go much further than to say, yes, it is good that the government has issued the terms of reference for the committee. Like the member for Arafura, I do not know a lot about it, just what I have learnt recently. I want to keep a clear mind on it. Even though I have read what is in the paper, I do not know whether the scientific base of what they have written is accurate or not. We need to deal with the facts. We need to talk to the people on the ground, then come back to this parliament with some recommendations that can make a difference. The member for Casuarina mentioned there were three processes in regard to how you deal with drugs.
The idea of cracking down on supply is very important. We may never get rid of the supply, but I do not think we should stop trying. If we can crack down on that supply so it is difficult for people to make this drug and sell it, then we put a hole in the problems we have. That would not be very easy because we live in a big country and supply of drugs is very difficult to stop altogether.
However, we need to put more emphasis on drug enforcement. We have strict laws in the Northern Territory which include the forfeiture of property so that is an area we need to be looking at as well.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for proposing this committee. I am interested to hear what the chair of the committee has to say.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for proposing this. I feel very privileged to be the chair of this committee. It is something I feel very strongly about and have done for a while.
In a former life when I was a teacher I was teaching a chemistry class which was doing an assignment talking about drugs. A student came to me with the premise that drugs are bad and was doing his assignment on that. I said, ‘Actually, drugs are great’. There are so many drugs in existence today that address very specific problems. These drugs were designed and manufactured for a purpose, which is to help people. I am sure people on heart medication would agree with this, as would people taking diabetes medication.
Let us take the worst, heroin. Heroin is the most addictive drug on the planet. It is also the best painkiller on the planet. In certain rare cases, where people are terminal and in a lot of pain, heroin is produced pharmaceutically and given to people in order to dull that pain so they can communicate in an effective manner. For this reason a lot of drugs are quite good. It is not the use of the drug that is bad but the abuse of it.
After having a good look at ice I am compelled to change my opinion. This drug has no good use whatsoever. There is nothing good about this drug and what it does to any person. The effect it has on an individual, a family and the community is quite terrible. From an individual perspective we have seen the results of this, where people become itchy and scratch the skin off their body. I will not go into the weight loss emaciation the member for Port Darwin spoke of earlier. It is a mind-altering drug.
I have experienced two instances where someone in very close proximity to me has been under the influence of this drug and could not be reasoned with and was totally out of control. In my electorate a guy was jumping from roof to roof, which was quite a fair distance, terrorising a neighbourhood whilst high on this drug. In another case a close relative of mine was taking ice, had a mental episode and believed he was Don Juan DeMarco or something insane. He ended up in Cowdy Ward and needed a lot of help to overcome that.
I know two families very close to me that have been devastated by this drug. In one case the person was taking the drug to stay awake on night shift and subsequently became addicted. He ended up lying, cheating, stealing money from people and losing his job. He did not tell anybody he had lost his job and was still dressing to go to work in the morning but went to a friend’s house to take ice. No one noticed money was not coming in as he was borrowing money from everybody under the premise that he still had this job and would pay people back. He ended up destroying his family. He had a young child and it was devastating to see the effect on that family.
Another close person I spoke about ended up in a mental institution and has now been released. The effects of that drug and the depression he now faces puts him on the edge of suicidal tendencies frequently. We can see from an individual and family perspective that this is terrible.
From a community perspective I can say this drug has affected Blain. Young Jack was killed in a hit and run by a person who was on ice. This incident aroused a lot of anger in my community about use, abuse and sale of this drug. Many people in my community will be very thankful to the Chief Minister for presenting this committee motion.
We will look forward to getting advice and information from many different sources to make some recommendations on how we can best address this. Suffice it to say all of us in this room probably agree on this. It is time to go to war on this drug to try to get some things in place and get things moving to defeat it and the stop the effects it will have in our community.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with all members of parliament. Committees are good, particularly when it is something we can work on together and try to find some resolution. I thank the members opposite for their words and look forward to working with them in this committee. I thank the Chief Minister for bringing it forward.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is very fitting that the chair of the committee was the last person to speak. He provided a good summation of the committee and how it will present itself going forward. I thank everybody who has made a valid contribution today in the debate. I thank members opposite, the member for Nelson and my colleagues.
Everyone has provided a valuable contribution. I was very interested in hearing the member for Blain, who has raised with me on a number of occasions circumstances not only in his electorate but the rest of Palmerston, and the prevalence of ice and the issues around it, as have many other members of parliament. I thank the member for Arafura very much for his contribution today. I also note the Police minister and the Attorney-General provided valuable contributions.
The member for Nhulunbuy will not be on the committee, but the member for Casuarina will be. I look forward to her participation.
As I said in my opening comments, ice is a drug which presents many issues in our community. The community is rightly concerned about it. As government we need to get a fair amount of evidence behind us to identify the extent of the problem, the current resolutions of dealing with targeting the manufacture, distribution and trafficking, as well as how to best help chronic abusers and users with the best assistance we can provide.
I look forward to obtaining the report on 17 September – it may be earlier or later – and seeing how we can respond as government. In the meantime, if we can deal with any issues or provide any responses, we are very happy to do that. If members of the committee, particularly the chairman, want to speak about circumstances we can assist the committee with – government intervention or otherwise – we are happy to do that.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members of the Chamber for their contribution to date and for their support. I look forward to the Northern Territory government, as a collective, responding to a positive report and a very important community issue.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
The Assembly suspended.
PETITION
Petition No 45 – Proposal to Relocate
Low-level Prisoners to Old ANSTI Site
Petition No 45 – Proposal to Relocate
Low-level Prisoners to Old ANSTI Site
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present a petition from 423 petitioners praying that low-level prisoners are not relocated to the old ANSTI site on Bees Creek Road. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth that we do not support the Department of Correctional Services’ plan to relocate prisoners to the old ANSTI site on Bees Creek Road and for the facility to be used as a transitional centre and subsequent living arrangement hostel following release from prison. The areas is zoned rural living and a facility used to house 30 prisoners is contrary to the zoning and against the wishes of the residents.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government does not proceed with the proposal to relocate low-level prisoners to Bees Creek Road facility, which if done so will detrimentally impact on rural lifestyle, amenity and safety. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I can respond to that petition forthwith by advising the member for Goyder and all members that decision will not be taken. We will not be taking up the facility in the Bees Creek Road area.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 24
Message No 24
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the receipt of Message No 24 from His Honour the Administrator dated 25 March 2015 regarding the Local Court Bill 2015.
NATIONAL ELECTRICITY (NORTHERN TERRITORY) (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 118)
(Serial 118)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the National Electricity (Northern Territory) (National Uniform Legislation) Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the transfer of economic regulation of the Territory’s prescribed electricity networks from the Utilities Commission to the Australian Energy Regular, referred to as the AER, and thus achieve greater alignment of the Territory’s regulatory arrangements with the national framework.
The Utilities Commission was established in 2000 as part of a series of regulatory reforms under the auspices of national competition policy. The commission is the Territory’s independent electricity network regulator with responsibility for administering the electricity networks third-party access regime, as well as for licensing electricity suppliers and monitoring of market conduct and performance.
Despite the Utilities Commission’s regulatory oversight and improved arrangements for third-party access to regulated electricity networks in the Territory, there is still a lack of competition in the Territory’s electricity market. This lack of competition is in part due to both potential and new entrants being concerned about differences between the Territory’s regulatory regime and the national one.
Adoption of the national electricity framework, including transferring electricity network regulation responsibilities to the AER, the national electricity network regulator, will improve certainty for national electricity suppliers to establish operations in the Territory.
This bill will enable the AER to regulate the Territory’s prescribed electricity networks through a three-phase approach. Phase 1 will begin on 1 July 2015, with the AER initially replacing the Utilities Commission as regulator under the Territory’s existing regulatory model. Part 5 of the bill amends the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act and the Electricity Reform Act to provide for the interim arrangements. Key changes to the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act primarily seek to replace and consolidate provisions spread across multiple Territory acts and correspond with those in the national electricity law where appropriate.
Amendments include: a new Part 3 to replace and consolidate various powers and functions of the regulator and its ability to make network price determinations; new Parts 3A and 3B to replace information gathering and disclosure provisions for the regulator; and a new Part 6 to replace procedures for the regulator to enforce compliance with the act. A new amendment has been included in Part 7 to provide for the making of regulations to enable modification to this act to correspond with those amendments in the national electricity law and to provide for associated transitional matters.
Transitional arrangements to ensure the continuation of certain required arrangements such as the gazettal of prescribed electricity networks, continuation of the existing 2014 to 2019 network price determination, continuation of other regulatory determinations and some transitional arrangements for the Utilities Commission, are included in the new Part 8.
Several minor amendments to the Electricity Reform Act are necessary and include transferring provisions regarding the creation and oversight of the Network Technical Code and Network Planning Criteria, and Energy Loss Factors Code from the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Code. This transfer is necessary so the Utilities Commission can retain administration over these technical codes which relate to electricity system operations, which are not the responsibility of the AER as an economic regulator.
Phase 2 will begin from 1 July 2016 and sees the AER continue the economic regulation of the Territory’s electricity networks under the amended Territory framework. However, the Territory will begin transitioning to the national framework from this date with some aspects of the national electricity law to be adopted.
Part 2 of the bill provides for the application of the national electricity law in the Territory, with modifications to suit the Territory circumstances as set out in Schedule 1. It also provides for the declaration of local distribution systems to be subject to economic regulation in Schedule 2, and confers the associated regulatory powers on the AER and the Australian Competition Tribunal.
Operating the Territory law with some aspects of the national law in tandem from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2019 will enable the AER to regulate the current network price determination made under the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act, while also preparing the 2019 to 2024 network price determination under the national legislation which commences after the expiry of the 2014 to 2019 network price determination.
Under Phase 3, the bill provides for further sections of the national electricity law to be adopted from 1 July 2019. This will see the AER regulate the Territory’s electricity networks under the national framework and the Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act repealed.
The bill provides for the Territory to make exemptions, referred to as derogations, to the national electricity law and rules. The exemptions recognise that parts of the national framework are not suitable for the Territory situation, particularly given the Territory is not physically connected to the National Electricity Market. Examples of such derogations include exempting the Territory from participating in the National Electricity Market’s wholesale electricity exchange and treating provisions relating to the Australian energy market operator, which operates the National Electricity Market as inapplicable.
Given it is not possible at this time to predict what transitional provisions or consequential amendments will be required on 1 July 2019, and to cater for future changes to the national electricity law, Part 3 of the bill provides for the matters to be dealt with by regulation. This is similar to the approach taken recently by New South Wales and Queensland in their adoption of the National Energy Retail Law.
The bill will see network regulation transferred from the Utilities Commission to the AER, which is better resourced and has greater expertise. Further adoption of the national framework will improve certainty with national electricity suppliers to establish operations in the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bills.
Debate adjourned.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE AND BENEFITS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 112)
(Serial 112)
Continued from 19 February 2015.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this bill. I thank the minister’s office for providing the opposition a briefing on this bill. For those interested, it was by phone conference. It allowed me to drive 220 km to get to the phone conference, as opposed to what would have been 1100 km. I thank all those members who attended the briefing. Thank you for the opportunity of acknowledging people who live in regional and remote areas.
NT Build was introduced to establish portable long service leave for the construction industry in 2005. It was a great reform delivered by the previous Labor government. Prior to the introduction of the scheme Territory construction workers were largely ineligible for normal long service leave provisions as the project-based nature of their work saw them moving between employers. This previously precluded them from accruing enough continuous work with one employer to become eligible for long service leave entitlements.
Establishing the scheme provided benefits to workers and the industry as a whole. Having portable long service leave for our construction sector improved our capacity to retain and attract skilled workers by making Territory working conditions more attractive.
In relation to the bill and the amendments to the bill regarding board membership, NT Build has performed well since its introduction. I acknowledge the past and present board members for their contributions. The board has been served well by experienced industry representatives. Presently the board is served by Barry Chambers as chair, a respected former senior NT public servant with extensive experience in industry; David Malone, executive director of the Master Builders Association NT, again a respected Territorian with experience in the public and private sector; Dick Guit the President of the Master Builders Association and General Manager of Sitzler who has worked in the Territory for decades and has considerable experience in the industry at many levels including senior management positions with large-scale local and national construction companies operating in the Territory; Nick Huddy, the NT Coordinator Cbus and representative of the CFMEU, who also has considerable experience of the sector in the Northern Territory; the ETU representative Michael Haire who also brings to the table knowledge of the local industry; and NT Treasury Assistant Under Treasurer, Craig Graham, who brings considerable skills and experience to the board.
I also pay tribute to Graham Kemp, now deceased, who was appointed to the inaugural NT Build Board as HIA Manager and continued his appointment as MBA General Manager. Graham was a passionate industry advocate who played a role in many industry reforms including NT Build.
I raise the board membership in this debate because the opposition has concerns with aspects of this bill, in particular the removal of the requirement for employee and employer representation.
It was pleasing to hear, as part of the briefing, that the NT Build scheme has been very successful. The government advised in that briefing that the NT Build scheme has a fund value of $75m with a liability of $38m. The briefing then explained that changes to the board reflect the need for that higher-level financial management, investment and legal expertise.
Having completed the briefing and continued with important consultation with stakeholders and constituents, the opposition now believes this aspect of the bill should recognise that industry experience is imperative to the continuation of a good balanced board. The move to bring an additional focus on governance and risk management skills to the board is supported. However, the Territory opposition thinks government and industry could be served by a balanced approach. It would be good to hear the minister’s response to that.
For instance, if the government moves completely to a handbook approach to board appointments, then it may overlook those people with extensive local industry knowledge and management experience who may not have the specific governance qualifications sought, but would bring great value to the board.
Has the government considered expanding the board to ensure local industry employers and employees can continue to have representation while also bringing in additional governance expertise? The Territory opposition believes there is room to achieve both. After all, we are looking at a scheme that has been financially well managed, a credit to the past and present board members and the NT Build team.
The Territory opposition supports a more balanced approach to ensure that the industry and construction worker representatives continue to be represented on the NT Build Board, and proposes the government consider maintaining at least one industry and employee representative.
In regard to the levy changes that represent the amendments in this bill, the amendment to require an actuarial report before the responsible minister can determine a project levy is supported. The opposition suggests that the actuarial report informing a levy change is tabled in this parliament.
Opposition’s research regarding this bill has established the minister’s determination in April last year that the project levy rate be reduced from 0.3% to 0.1% has generated much comment from stakeholders in the Territory. Following that announcement, the actuarial report prepared in June last year and tabled in this House in the last sitting recommended the scheme levy rate be maintained, and made the point that it may not be sustainable in the longer term. To be clear, I will quote from that report.
It was my understanding that in April 2014 the CLP reduced the levy rate to fund the scheme from 0.3% to 0.1% and raised the threshold for when the levy applies for project costs from $200 000 up to $1m.
In the Actuarial Review of administration, benefits and levy rate of the NT Build Construction Industry Long Service Leave Scheme as at June 2014 report dated January 2015, it said on page 6:
- Based on the current surplus position, the above illustrated projection scenarios and the various considerations listed above it appears appropriate that the scheme levy rate remain unchanged at the current rate of 0.1% of leviable activity for coming years. A rate of 0.1% of leviable activity is below the break-even levy rate and may not be sustainable in the long term.
I recommend that the levy rate remain unchanged at 0.1% of leviable activity as a result of this review.
It would be interesting to hear the minister’s response to that important recommendation in an actuarial review of administration benefits and the levy rate of NT Build.
For the open accountability of the scheme the Territory opposition asks the government if it will commit to tabling in this House the actuarial report prepared in relation to project levy considerations. Does the government intend to review the project levy annually given the comments of the actuary?
In relation to qualifying service days, the Territory opposition supports the amendment that reduces the number of qualifying service days a worker needs to be credited with a year-long service leave credit from 260 to 220 days, as in other states.
The Northern Territory opposition does not support the removal of employer and employee representation from the NT Build Board. The NT Build scheme is a great initiative. Local board representation has delivered strong results for the scheme and the government. Industry and workers would be better served by a more balanced approach that continues local industry representation with additional governance and corporate management skills, instead of excluding local expertise. The 18 000 members of the scheme would expect some certainty and representation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we are interested in hearing the minister’s response in regard to the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Amendment Bill 2015, as the Territory opposition proposes actuarial review after 12 months and for the report to be tabled in parliament. The NT opposition proposes maintaining one industry and one union position on the board. Importantly, the Territory opposition calls for the minister and the government to address a worker awareness campaign. That would be a very good initiative in relation to this bill and the changes that will take place moving to the future.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am representing the Minister for Business, the person who has carriage of this bill, and I am very proud to do so. Unfortunately, he is off work. He has had a terrible injury and I understand he is recovering.
I am disappointed that the opposition could not find a pair for the minister. It is rather rude. Opposition members often ask us for pairs at times when their members are having babies, have sick children or want to go on bereavement leave. Government is always prepared to grant that pair. It seems when the boot is on the other foot, though, the opposition wants to play dirty, filthy political games. It is quite sad.
I am representing the Minister for Business and it is my great pleasure to respond to the shadow spokesman, the member for Barkly who, from what I heard, does not have great objections to changes to this bill. However, he has some concerns in a couple of areas, and I will address them if I can.
The member for Barkly questioned the need to change board positions. This long service leave fund of Build NT is a trust. The directors of that fund have a very clear understanding of the objectives of the fund, which are pretty simple. You are fundamentally dealing with two groups, as you rightly point out: employers and employees. The employers are the contributors to the scheme; the employees, of course, are the beneficiaries. The board’s position is about how it best limits the ongoing liability to employers, the contributors, and maximises the benefits for the beneficiaries, the employees.
Long gone are the ideological arguments we had about long service leave in the construction industry. That has been . It was your government that introduced this scheme. We could hark back to those arguments we had several years ago, but I do not think there is any point in that. The fact is we do have a long service leave fund now for construction workers in the Northern Territory that is somewhat well harmonised with similar long service leave funds for the construction industry in other jurisdictions of Australia.
My point, member for Barkly, is with the establishment of these funds I believe there was a great requirement to have employer and employee involvement to make sure the funds were established correctly and their terms of reference or constitutions were correctly put together. That has passed; the fund has been established. It is clearly there to benefit employees. It is there to ensure that employers can be confident their contributions are meeting the long service leave needs of their employees or contractors. For that reason the necessity to have strong employer and employee representation on these boards has somewhat subsided.
However, as you rightly point out there is a need for proper financial management and financial governance. I am led to believe and understand the NT Build scheme has assets of something like $80m, which in the context of retirement or superannuation funds would be considered rather small fry, but in the Territory that is a substantial fund of money. Most people would say we need to have proper governance systems in place and the people we select to be on those boards should be selected on merit. When I say ‘merit’, I am talking about merit of financial management and making sure members and employers are best looked after through their competing needs.
The long-term sustainability of the fund is being reviewed every 12 months. There is an actuarial review. You can feel comforted by that, member for Barkly. I will have to seek advice later to see whether that actuarial advice can and should be tabled in the parliament. I am not too certain of the detail contained in that advice; whether it relates to specific members’ benefits or it can be done as a whole. I can say we are happy to look at that. I will be seeking some advice later to see whether or not that is appropriate.
Treasury was looking at that initial advice that we reduce that contribution required by employers. The actuarial advice told us the scheme was somewhat oversubscribed, and based on future requirements we could reduce the amount of contribution required from businesses. That is what we have done. We have alleviated some of the burden on those companies that pay into the NT Build fund.
I am sure the opposition will agree with us when we say this has never been about a big stick to hit employers with; it is all about the long service needs of people who work in the construction industry. Providing their requirements are being met by the scheme, I am sure you would agree we will all be happy.
As I said, the scheme is being reviewed every 12 months. There will be actuarial advice taken on board every 12 months and decisions will be made about that level of contribution required from employers.
The other features of the bill, which no doubt you have read, are that major projects over $1bn are being changed so there is an ability to have agreements where those projects will also contribute to the fund.
We have reduced the numbers of days for years of service from 260 to 220, which is again a benefit for those in the construction industry who may not necessarily have worked 365 days a year. They can go from one job to another and sometimes find themselves for a couple of weeks between jobs. All of those things will benefit the beneficiaries of this fund and alleviate some of the pressure on employers.
From an employer’s side, as much as we can do to reduce their cost means they have more money to put more people in work. We do not want to see this fund being a quasi-tax on jobs. We are keen to make sure that people who work in the construction industry receive their long service leave like other employees and people in the workforce around the Territory and the country. At the same time, we do not want to see employers unduly burdened to the point where it starts to impact on their bottom line and their ability to grow their businesses and further employ people in the industry.
Member for Barkly, we have heard your concerns. You can be somewhat comforted that every 12 months there will be a review of that rate. It is not set in stone. I heard what you said about the actuarial advice. The key words there are ‘long-term sustainability’. Clearly we are focused on that as well. We are making short-term decisions but seriously looking at the long-term sustainability of the fund. We want to ensure it is sustainable into the long term, but we do not believe that having a set rate over the long term does that in the most efficient manner.
I am not too sure, member for Barkly, if you had other concerns. I made some dot points as we were going through …
Mr McCarthy: A worker awareness campaign.
Mr TOLLNER: I am not entirely sure that is required. These funds are now quite commonplace around the country. I remember 20 years ago they were not commonplace; they were starting to be introduced into the country and many people were not aware of them.
I put to you that pretty well everybody in the construction industry these days would know when they register with an employer they also register with their fund and they start to accrue long service leave. I am not certain of that but, member for Barkly, I am more than happy to take some advice on it. If there is a need we could look at working with the sector to see ways to raise awareness. My view – this is not a government view – is that pretty well everybody in the construction industry these days would know there are provisions for long service leave and have a pretty good idea how to do it. Young blokes and young ladies starting in the construction industry would be briefed up fairly quickly on that.
As I said, 20 or 25 years ago there was a need to run a worker awareness campaign around superannuation because it was not common then. Only public servants and employees of some big businesses had access to a super fund. After it became compulsory in 1992 there was a big consumer campaign. I do not see too much of that happening these days as people are now aware that when they go to a job their employer is contributing to a super fund. The same applies in the construction industry.
I thank the opposition for taking the time to consider this bill in detail. I have looked at it as the Treasurer and have been supportive of it in Cabinet because its long-term sustainability is not threatened. It is becoming a lean and mean fund inasmuch as it is run quite efficiently. That is another reason to sometimes limit the number of people on boards and to focus on those key areas of reducing costs for employers and maximising benefits for employees. That is what the concerns of the board are these days. The battles that took place in years gone by are things of the past. This is a job, in some way, for professional fund managers.
I note there is a transition to these board changes. It is not a wholesale get rid of all the employer association reps and the employee reps, but is being phased over a period where the desire is to ultimately get a handful of people with serious governance experience who can maximise those benefits.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION LEGISLATION
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 117)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 117)
Continued from 26 February 2015.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak against this bill on behalf of the Territory opposition because the changes the government is proposing break a compact with Northern Territory workers to, first and foremost, put their health, safety and welfare as a priority if they are injured in the course of their employment. The main beneficiaries of these amendments will be the insurance companies which will increase profits at the expense of long-term injured workers.
The opposition has not forgotten that on the day the government forced through the sale of TIO to Allianz, one of the world’s largest and richest insurance companies, you also flagged changes to our workers compensation regime. The opposition asked then, and asks again, whether Allianz was in the know about your plan to increase the profit pie for workers comp insurers with these changes, when it was negotiating to buy the Territory Insurance Office from the CLP government. In buying TIO, Allianz considerably increased its share of the workers compensation insurance market in the Territory. It will benefit financially from these amendments which cut benefits to injured workers.
The Territory opposition condemns this government for trying to play wedge politics on the issue by refusing twice last year to support Labor bills to extend workers compensation payments and benefits to firefighters who develop cancer in the course of their job of protecting us and our community.
We support aspects of this bill that pick up on what we were trying to achieve last year, finally bringing the NT into line with most of Australia in regard to firefighters. Our promise to firefighters is this: when we are elected to government we will implement further changes to this legislation to ensure we meet all of our obligation to firefighters who develop cancer, asbestosis or other conditions that most often take a long time to develop. Similarly, we welcome the changes that increase payments to the families of workers who die as a result of a workplace injury or accident. We welcome insurers being obliged to meet the costs of grief and other types of counselling for families and loved ones who suffer when a worker dies because of their employment.
On the balance of it, we cannot support this bill which takes from injured workers and gives the profits of insurers. That does nothing to ensure workers are properly rehabilitated or provided with further training and assistance to take on other work if they can no longer perform the work they did before being injured.
That rebadges the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act as the Return to Work Act, implying that getting injured workers back to work is a problem in our current scheme, when the facts show it is not. That implies that malingering workers are the problem when anyone working in this field knows that is not the case. That introduces a cruel whole-of-body impairment test to severely limit the number of long-term injured workers who will receive ongoing benefits after five years or medical treatment after six years. That duck shoves people off workers compensation and onto the public purse if they cannot gain employment after five years, or continue to require treatments or medications past the six-year cut-off. This breaks a pact made with NT injured workers in the late 1980s when the government of the day removed their rights to sue for damages in the court, instead making a promise to them that the system would look after them for as long as they needed that assistance.
This change will encourage insurers to seek to offer lump sum payments even earlier that will be, because of the five-year rule, more paltry than they offer now, and could leave workers with no income or assistance to pay for ongoing medical costs once the small sum is used. This bill was formulated without talking to injured workers or their representatives who will tell you how frustrating and soul destroying it is to be unable to work.
This bill introduces a new definition for worker into our workers compensation system making it more complicated than it currently is by adopting the tax office definition of pay-as-you-go taxpayers and cutting out many workers who are employed as contractors or on other arrangements who are currently covered by our workers compensation scheme. By this action you will encourage employers to engage people on contracts that may not be appropriate; that will involve not paying workers compensation premiums and putting families and workers at risk.
This outcome also can represent extreme litigation as injured workers are forced to litigate to get in the future what they are guaranteed to get now: fair coverage and access to workers compensation. The restriction on the ability to claim for non-cash benefits for fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out workers defies logic as it makes a distinction between these workers. For example workers from remote communities or location workers who do not fly-in, fly-out or drive-in, drive out. This is the basis of the reasons the Territory opposition cannot support this bill.
I will also go to stakeholders and their contribution and the research the Territory opposition has completed. I will read into the public record for the government’s attention some of the concerns that have been raised. I will start with the minister replying to a comment in the second reading speech on the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 where the minister said:
- This bill represents the first stage in the implementation of the review’s recommendations. The balance of the recommendations will be captured in a second bill expected to be introduced in the May 2015 sittings.
The gravity of the changes in this bill raise many concerns within the community. The minister’s statement said this is just a stage of it. We are once again expected to make a decision when we do not know what is coming next and how these two will relate to each other. We have major concerns about the first bill and the minister is telling us to just trust him as there will be more changes captured in the second bill expected to be introduced. This makes for an interesting story. Essentially what stakeholders have told us is to be very aware because this bill we are debating today is only half the story.
I would like the minister to comment on stakeholder concerns about the administration of a fitness certificate for our workers. I have been advised that doctors and others will determine the fitness of an injured worker in future. I advised stakeholders that I would take that to the parliament and ask. In the May 2015 sittings will this be delivered in any detail? The question for the minister is: who would be in the category of ‘others’ other than a medical practitioner?
The concerns raised have been strong and articulate. The first major area relates to the capping of weekly benefits for most claimants to a maximum of five years, with medical and treatment costs to extend 12 months after that date. This is a most significant change in workers compensation and rehabilitation and there has been some strong articulation about that. The first one I would like to share with the minister relates to correspondence from the Law Society of the Northern Territory. A letter to Hon Peter Styles MLA, Minister for Business, dated 24 March 2015 said:
- Amendments to Workers Compensation Legislation
- Law Society Northern Territory (“Society”) notes the first and second reading of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Bill 2015 (“Bill”) in the Legislative Assembly on 26 February 2015.
The Society provided significant feedback on the Preliminary Report into the Review of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (“Act”) (“Review”). A copy of our submission is attached.
In your second reading speech on 26 February 2015 you noted that the Bill is the first stage in the implementation of the recommendations arising from the Review and that the balance of the recommendations will be addressed in a second bill which is expected to be introduced in the May 2015 parliamentary sittings.
The Society is concerned that the amendments to the Act in the Bill go well beyond the recommendations in the Final Report of the Review. We are further concerned that the amendments to the workers compensation scheme in the Bill are not in the public interest and in line with community expectations. By way of example we note:
1. The underlying philosophy of the Act is that it is a remedial, no-fault scheme providing for the rehabilitation and compensation for injured workers. That has been the case in the Northern Territory since 1987 when workers’ common law rights were abolished in favour of a complete no-fault scheme which is interpreted and applied beneficially.
- This will have the effect of moving those workers from accessing compensation under the no-fault scheme and into the public health system. This will result in a cost shift to the public and away from insurers under the specifically targeted and funded scheme, a cost shift that is likely to affect not only Medicare and the public health system but also to the Territory government through the National Insurance Injury Scheme.
The Society is unaware of any evidence that the scheme as currently funded is not sustainable and understands that premiums have remained stable, giving certainty to employers.
By way of example injuries such as loss of range of movement in a limb or elbow, loss of fingers or toes, fractures to right leg and ankle bones requiring surgery and leaving one leg longer than the other and pain in both legs when standing or sitting, loss of mammary gland for a woman of childbearing age, complete loss of smell and taste would not be likely to reach 15% WPI. Again, the Society is concerned that this move will result in increasing pressure on the public health system and is not in the public interest.
It is also not in line with the philosophies of no-fault, remedial and beneficial legislation. Whilst other jurisdictions have an equivalent or higher WPI threshold limit to accessing compensation, those jurisdictions also have access to common law damages. This is not available to Territorians and so a situation where the Act precludes access to common law rights and then continues to erode the rights of workers fails to meet community expectations.
For these sorts of reasons the Society suggests that any comparisons to the schemes in other jurisdictions as a means of justifying the amendments in the Bill are not reliable. If accessibility to the prescribed scheme continues to be curtailed without access to common law then any comparison is to be avoided.
4. The society is also concerned that the changes to the definition of ‘worker’ creates uncertainty insofar as the Act ought to apply to workers and not contractors in circumstances where it is in the public interest that workers and employers have certainty about the application of the Act.
5. The Society is also concerned that the amendments proposed in relation to firefighters in the Bill (s.50A, regulations 5B and 5C) are unclear and unworkable e.g. in record keeping. In circumstances where the qualifying periods of diseases range between 5 and 25 years, it is not clear how the recording of the prescribed number of fires will be monitored and regulated. The Society is concerned that this creates an additional, unnecessary layer of complexity and uncertainty for workers and employers alike.
- The Society suggests that it is in the interests of workers, employers and the community at large that the workers compensation scheme generally reflects the abolition of workers’ common law rights and the funding of the scheme which is then required to absorb the total costs of rehabilitating and compensating injured workers.
Any derogation of rights and shifting of costs outside of the scheme to the public is not in the community interests and the above points represent just some of the Society’s broader concerns about whether the amendments proposed in the Bill are likely to meet the expectations of the broader community and are in keeping with the critical philosophies of the Act.
- The Society asks that you give this correspondence your urgent attention and would be happy to be further consulted on the amendments in the Bill and into the second phase in May 2015.
That was signed, ‘Yours sincerely’, by the Chief Executive Officer.
That is an example of a high-level stakeholder who provided the minister with very important advice. It will be interesting to hear the minister’s comments because that advice has not been adhered to in the amendments to the workers compensation bill.
I took points from various stakeholders and asked questions. The issues of shifting of liability from the compensation scheme, cutting off payments after five years, cutting off medical coverage after six years would all put pressure on the public system, including Medicare. Also discussed was that there would be significant pressure put on Centrelink or non-government community service organisations. It will have a resounding impact for many workers after that cut-off period.
A good example to use in this debate is one that was talked about in the community about a childcare worker or nurse who severely injured their back and needed spinal fusion requiring multiple surgeries over many years, but only received the 14%. Under these government amendments their compensation payments would end after five years, with no future medical costs paid a year later. Another is a crane operator who suffers knee injuries and cannot climb a ladder or walk up any kind of mild gradient who is still injured after five years will be cut off.
This suggests the concern in the community that went to a grassroots comment of why the government is deserting the injured worker in favour of these multinational insurance company profits. There does not seem to be a resounding level of support in the community for these changes; there is great concern. The responses have been from a high level through to the grassroots, to workers, to the union movement which is also very concerned.
Another question that has been posed for the minister is about the changes to the definition of ‘worker’. It has changed over the years. It seems to be the government’s agenda to squeeze the payout. What stakeholders were telling me when I was conducting research was it is about working with industry, the workers and constituents about improving workplace culture.
There were interesting anecdotes about the City of Darwin and the small number of people government is dealing with. The numbers can be quoted, but they were small. There was a consensus that ran through the conversations I engaged in that the level of construction has tripled and quadrupled over the years – there is no doubt about that – yet there is no major corresponding reflection in injured workers. As a matter of fact, it looks like workplace culture is holding and the workplace occupational health and safety practices are working.
We have small numbers in the Territory who need to claim compensation and rehabilitation, so why would the Territory government not set that example of being one in solidarity with the workers as opposed to what is now resonating in the community: a government that is favouring the profits of a multinational insurer, or insurers in that case?
This conversation is definitely resonating. It was interesting to talk to workers who spoke of the fair and just negotiations with the CLP government in 1986 for the opportunity to trade off claiming under common law to set up a no-fault scheme. That seems to be a major agreement that is now being backtracked by this current CLP government. People in the community and the workers in the Territory have real concerns about that because their baseline is the protection of the worker and their family should they be injured. They need that safety net that is provided currently, and are very concerned about these amendments which will change that.
For the minister’s information the other interesting comment I heard was about the change in definition of ‘worker’ to that pay-as-you-go taxation status definition. It was discussed that this is far more complex and can lead to far more complex outcomes. Cynically, it could relate to employers in the Territory using this opportunity to not pay workers compensation, to define workers involved in a myriad of different services within their business and industry as not being employees so they would not be covered. They have no common law provision to initiate litigation to deliver for their injuries and rehabilitation. Also, under this definition of pay-as-you-go, I was advised by a number of stakeholders that it could add very significant complexities that could end up in the court system and prove this to be unworkable legislation.
There is a common agreement that we try to stay out of the court system. Under this new definition around the Australian Taxation Office status and injured workers who find themselves not covered through the compensation and rehabilitation scheme we have now, they will be left no choice but to contest this. Essentially I was advised they will be directly contesting the government’s amendments to this new definition that will, once again, be a burden on government, expose poor legislation and be a burden on the injured workers and their families who, without any fair recourse, will revert to the systems I have already talked about, being Medicare, Centrelink and non-government service organisations.
The definition of ‘worker’ is critical in getting that right. I ask the minister for his clear explanation about that because the more complicated arrangement linked to the Australian Taxation Office legislation and systems seems to be a flaw in this legislation. The Territory opposition asks the minister to explain that change.
It is important to stress that many industry groups the Territory opposition spoke to were proud to say workplace claims have dropped in the Northern Territory, including death and disability, while the construction industry’s claims have tripled and quadrupled. This represents a positive change in workplace culture toward prevention of accidents and injury which encourages any government to focus on that while continuing to provide that important safety net for workers and their families.
It is important in this debate to talk about WorkSafe and the changes the CLP government has made to it. Stakeholders called for improved regulation by WorkSafe in industry. They felt the changes the Northern Territory government has made has had an impact on our WorkSafe, and they asked that the government consider the need to look at it. A grassroots approach to looking at regulation is an important part of the improvement of workplace culture and safety.
I have a quote I will outline for the House which came from a number of contributors. It said this legislation seems to be designed to squeeze the payout out and attack the compensation side of the system, which essentially abandons the worker and consequently favours the profits of the big insurers. It is not fair and equitable, it does not provide a safety net for the worker and it will not develop a positive workplace culture in industry into the future.
The other interesting point is the stakeholders and the constituents who contributed to the opposition’s research made a point of how the CLPs agenda seems to favour the profits and the insurer. This legislation definitely disadvantages Territory employers. The amendment says the employers fund the work health scheme. Questions were asked about how this change will make the scheme more affordable. I found that interesting. The minister might like to respond to that question of the shift to the employers funding the scheme, making the scheme more affordable in relation to the package of amendments.
Another point which I find interesting is there is no recognition of psychological impairment in this bill. A number of stakeholders talked about post-traumatic stress syndrome related to ambulance officers or paramedics, and that this new government amendment to the bill does not recognise psychological impairment as a primary impairment. A number of stakeholders said the government is comprised of a number of ex-police officers, and they were very interested in what those ex-police officers would have to say about psychological impairment that relates to on-the-job stress, post-traumatic stress and those issues.
Talking about psychological or psychiatric impairment, the permanent impairment benefit is a lump sum payment where a person suffers permanent impairment as a result of the injury they suffered. A person is assessed according to the American Medical Association guide to the evaluation of permanent impairment. The amendments make the permanent impairment assessment relevant for receiving benefits beyond five years. The AMA guides allow for aggregating different impairments so the final figure represents the full effects of the injury. Psychological or psychiatric impairment caused by having to deal with the effects of a physical injury other than related to a heart attack or stroke will now be excluded from permanent impairment.
A firefighter who suffers burns to their arm will be able to be assessed for all their physical components such as nerve damage, skin damage and scarring. They will be able to claim for psychological injury if they have a post-traumatic stress disorder. They will not be able to claim for a depression illness caused by not being able to play with their kids or the financial ruin and family breakdown that so often goes hand in hand with a workplace injury. This is a very fine line but a very real argument that has come from stakeholders.
There is no logic for creating this artificial distinction to determine access to statutory benefits. It is used in some jurisdictions when determining whether a person has reached the threshold for access to common law damages. Once over the threshold a court assessing damages will readily include it. It is simply discrimination against those who, through no fault of their own, suffer a workplace injury and are psychologically damaged by that injury. I found that to be a very important part of the opposition’s research and component of these amendments which the minister needs to make comment on.
The Territory Labor opposition will not support these amendments. We have consulted widely with a conglomerate of layers, from people who have taken a legal interest in this to the workers, families and constituents. We have consulted with the union movement. I took the opportunity to share with the Northern Territory that letter I read on to the public record from the Law Society to show those real concerns that came from a high-level group of stakeholders. It does not seem to have been acknowledged or reflected in the government’s amendments.
Madam Speaker, this is a very serious bill and we will not support it. We ask that the minister responds to our concerns. Another member of the opposition will speak specifically on behalf of the Territory firefighters the opposition has fought so hard to support over two years. I acknowledge the final commonsense approach from the Country Liberal Party government. Should we be judged worthy in an election and elected as the government of the Northern Territory, we will go further with amending that legislation to provide for those firefighters.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, legislation occasionally comes to parliament where governments do a couple of things at once as this does. It always makes it difficult to know which way to go. I support the changes for the firefighters who have long fought for assistance and this type of legislation before us today. My concerns are with the other part of the legislation. I thank the department for the briefing yesterday.
I will explain the reasons why I probably will not vote on it. If I vote against it I am sending a message to the firefighters that I do not agree with their legislation. If I support it then I do not think I am being fair to myself because I have some concerns which I will raise. This is complex legislation. I received the letter from the Law Society yesterday. Without having adequate time to work through the issues they raised and dissect the clauses of the NT Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act review, I feel I would be speaking without enough background to agree or disagree with some of their comments.
The main concern I have is the issue of the workers who have below the 15% threshold with the cut-off at five years. I need to put my concern into context. Clause 5 of the bill to insert a new section 2 in the act states:
- The objects of this Act are as follows:
…
(c) to ensure that the scheme for the rehabilitation and compensation of injured workers in the Territory:
- (i) is fair, affordable, efficient and effective; and
(iii) is balanced to ensure that the costs of workers compensation are contained to reasonable levels for employers.
I will start at the last point which is about the cost of workers compensation. I remember debating in this parliament – and I must admit I felt I was debating on my own – the issue the previous government raised in regard to workers compensation for 457 visa workers. Some of that discussion related to the cost of supporting 457 visa workers who have permanent disability. I stand to be corrected, but both sides were concerned the insurance companies might have to foot a large bill if they had to go down that path.
I remember contacting the insurance company QBE three times to ask them how many workers qualified for this classification. They never gave the figures because there was not a big issue; there were not large numbers of people who were totally incapacitated due to an injury on a work site. I question the 18 people per year that is quoted in the second reading speech:
- Analysis by the Northern Territory scheme actuary has estimated that of the 22 000 claims made on insurers over the past nine years, only 157 claimants – an average of 18 claimants per year – are still on compensation after five years. Although these numbers are relatively small, the cost of these claims is disproportionately high.
We do not have any figures to back that. I go back to an earlier quote from the second reading:
- Northern Territory insurers have flagged that pressures in the scheme will result in increased premiums for employers.
Any proof?
- The average premium rate in the Northern Territory is already one of the highest in Australia, with only the ACT and South Australia being higher. Unless action is taken to revise scheme benefits, workers compensation premiums in the Northern Territory will continue to rise.
There is no proof in what I have before me that that is the case. I go back to the legislation that was passed in this House. Members of the parliament were supportive of the insurance companies because they believed insurance companies would cop a big bill. Yet the insurance company quoted in that debate could not show any proof this would cost them any more than it was then.
The other concern I have in relation to this is I am struggling to find examples of people who fit into the category of being disabled – if that is the right word – below 15%. You would hope there would be some jobs that could be found for people with that disability so they could get back to work so they would not need assistance for five years. However if they have assistance for five years, there must be a pretty good reason. Who makes this arbitrary decision, ‘That is it’? If you want to cut the costs why do we not just make it three years, two years and too bad after that?
I cannot find a real-life example of people who are in this situation where that threshold means they need medical assistance and help with their salary. I am in a quandary. Why would you want to cut them off? There must have been a good reason if they have gone this far. I also would like to know the number of people and the cost to the insurance companies.
I will throw in something out of left field. Generally we are turning into the super-safe workforce. We have an industry that deals with lollipop ladies, witches hats and visibility vests. If you go on any mine or construction site you have to go through some instruction on what you should or should not do and wear steel-capped boots and sometimes gloves. We are a society that is very much safety conscious. You are supposed to get a certificate if you fall in a hole more than 1 m deep these days. You can go on a ladder to a certain height then you have to use a lift. You probably need a certificate to get in a lift as well. Are we expecting more and more people to be injured in future because we live in a safety-conscious society?
It is a bit like the firefighters’ legislation. Obviously 20 years ago there was not much safety equipment for firefighters, not to the extent we have today. You would hope the requirements in this legislation to help people who may have contracted serious disease would be less because the safety requirements for firefighters are much higher than they were many years ago.
Is this argument about the cost to insurers a real one? What is it based on? What are the facts? How many people are we dealing with – 18 per year? I am concerned that in this legislation a small group of people under the 15% threshold seem to have been put on the scrap heap because we need to keep costs down. I have not been given evidence to show whether those people can or cannot work.
I agree with the principle behind this legislation, which is return to work. It is good. That is the philosophy behind the South Australian legislation, and I presume that of other states. That is a good, positive change to this legislation. However there are certain things which leave me a little dry, as the economics of this change have overridden the human issues which should come first.
Of course the people who are applying for help need to be tested. There are sections which talk about fraudulent matters where people are claiming when they should not be. Those things should be tested; no doubt about it. If there are genuine people who have a need for this type of compensation why should it be cut off at an arbitrary five years?
My understanding is some other states do it. Maybe they believe the insurance companies as well. Maybe it is a national scheme. Maybe the federal government thinks the insurance companies are under stress. I have not seen the evidence that insurance companies are under that much stress they cannot afford to pay these people. If we are thinking about getting people back to work we should be putting the emphasis on that rather than how to cut their compensation.
During the briefing I raised another issue a person came to see me about pertaining to what is not permitted to be claimed. You cannot claim superannuation. When most of us work, we expect a certain amount of superannuation to go to the super fund which we hope one day to retire on. While on compensation no superannuation is paid into your fund. When you eventually go back to work, you have missed out on superannuation for that period of time. That concerns me because that superannuation is just as important as your wage. You are disadvantaged because of the accident you had. I would rather see superannuation allowed for when working out compensation. It is important that it remains.
This is complex; there is no doubt about it. I thank the government for its briefing. I have been through it a couple of times. I did not read the whole review, but I read the Review of (NT) Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, Summary, which sets out the key points. It recommended that:
- … the maximum duration of weekly compensation for claims involving injury assessed at less than 15% of the whole person on the relevant AMA guides ends after 260 weeks of incapacity. In relation to medical and related expenses, we recommend this entitlement conclude 52 weeks after the end of the entitlement to weekly compensation.
I quote again from that summary:
- We feel it reasonable and consistent with the major Australian workers’ compensation jurisdictions, and the view of the Heads of Workers’ Compensation Authorities (HWCA), that the maximum duration of non-serious injury claims be 260 weeks (5 years).
That is too cold. I see that as presuming people do not need help after five years. That is too predetermined. You should take each case on its own circumstances.
The member for Barkly quoted the letter from the Law Society NT which only arrived at 5.15 pm last night. One of the difficult things about this legislation is there are not many people you can go to. I am not saying I do not trust the government when it provides a briefing, but if you want an alternative point of view which may or may not support the government, it is not easy to get it. This is a legal document. It is not that easy for people like me to understand.
When I receive a document from the Law Society NT which raises some of the concerns I have raised, and more, I become concerned. I do not know whether the minister has time to respond to that.
It attached a preliminary report into the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, so I gather it made comment on it. In its comments there are many sections of that review it does not support. How many of those matters which were not supported ended up in the legislation? For instance, the society does not support: on page 25, interpretation of legislation; on page 30, rehabilitation; and on page 32, the return to work programs. There are another 28 items saying, ‘does not support the recommendations’ in that document, which I have highlighted.
I am not saying all the Law Society NT’s serious concerns are correct. The government needs an opportunity to look at what has been written. Government may have another point of view, naturally. I find it difficult to support this legislation when I hear conflicting views. I do not believe I would be fair on this legislation if I decide it is right. That is the reason I support the firefighters section of the act, but I still have questions about the other parts of the act.
Finally, I do not support those two sections of the act. The insurance companies will cry foul, or do they cry wolf? I am unsure which animal it is. They will cry that life is tough. I am not sure it is that tough, because when we had this debate about 457 visa people I had meetings with QBE and asked them to show me the figures that life would be tough and they would not provide them. I reckon there is a bit of money driving this issue when it should be about what is a fair and reasonable compensation for a worker, regardless of the situation or without putting them into a box that says at the end of five years that is it. We need to be a little more flexible in that approach.
Madam Speaker, those are my concerns about the legislation. I thank the minister for bringing it to the parliament today. There are some good things in it but there are also some things I have concerns about.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, sorry, I was lost in thought in another place. The magnificence of the speech by the member for Nelson transported me to a place far away from here which was full of flowers, butterflies and those sorts of things. I am grateful to the member for Nelson; it was a meditational experience.
I will not use my whole half-hour today. I want to point out a couple of things to members in this place. We have to be a little careful about the expectations we try to raise. I will speak more globally about the concept that is under debate today: the presumptive legislation. I point out that we have to be a bit cautious about presumptive legislation, particularly in the expectations of individuals.
People often use the term ‘presumptive legislation’ without understanding where the reference comes from. It comes from legal terms; law is full of presumptions. You will find it both in the criminal law and the civil law. The presumption of innocence is one of the examples where you will demonstrate that there is a presumption about a person who is brought before a court. There are presumptions woven into the statute book and the common law in relation to standards of evidence you have to meet. If you look at tort law you will find it has many presumptions built into it.
Presumptions are constructed in a certain fashion and are, by their definition or the word that is used to describe them, rebuttable. I will give you an example. In the Bail Act, for argument’s sake, there is a presumption in favour of or against bail. That means that the starting point of a court when considering a particular issue is they will presume a certain set of circumstances be correct and continue on that presumption until such time as that presumption is challenged. If there is sufficient evidence to undermine or change the mind of the court and say that the presumption is incorrect then the court can be guided or dissuaded from pursuing the presumption.
This is why we have to be a little careful because presumptive legislation as described in this bill before the House is a series of presumptions of the likelihood of a limited variety of cancers attached to a firefighter who has fought fires, particularly chemical fires, through their working life and have undergone certain training, which is redundant nowadays, where they were exposed to things like smoke from burning vulcanised rubber tyres and that type of thing without proper breathing apparatus. There is no doubt there are carcinogens in all those things . As a parliament – mind you listening to the ALP you could swear they were not in favour of this legislation – we will pass this legislation today, hopefully, which will say that certain types of cancers are presumptive, or presumed by a court to be caused by workplace exposure.
That does not necessarily mean it will automatically follow that people will be paid out. Every case will be decided on its own merits. Every case that comes before a court will be considered and it is quite conceivable that the insurer’s lawyers will start to ask questions around the strength of the presumption I am discussing today.
Let me give you an example. Perhaps a firie is seeking compensation in relation to exposure to certain types of carcinogens but in some other facet in their life they were exposed to those carcinogens in greater quantity. Take something like a lung cancer claim. The firie also, in this instance, for 30 years of dedicated smoking, smoked two packets of cigarettes a day. Conceivably, the insurer’s lawyer would walk into a court in that environment and say, ‘I represent the people who are paying out. This guy has been exposed to various forms of tyre smoke during the period of training but has been a two-packet-a-day smoker for 30 years. We can now establish, without too much effort in this court today that smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer.’ That could well convince a court, depending on any other evidence they receive, that presumption will not be maintained, and the court may find the smoking was, in every likelihood, the source of the cancer and not the fires.
This is why we have to be careful about these legislative instruments because they build expectations. One could be forgiven for thinking, having heard some of the things I have heard in the domain right now, that firies will automatically get paid out the moment this legislation is passed. I hope we have not raised those expectations because I do not know whether or not the insurer will resist some of these claims, despite the fact they now cover the field with a presumption in favour rather than a presumption against. I counsel people to be careful and cautious with that assumption about the presumption.
The second thing I want to touch on very briefly – I have been in and out of the Chamber for various reasons but I heard the member for Barkly talking about the issue of the secondary claim when a claim is made. I want to describe to the House exactly what the intent of the legislative instrument is. If a police officer, for argument’s sake, is shot in the chest and there is some associated stress disorder attendant to that particular incident, then the compensation will cover both the physical and psychological injuries.
However, if a person suffers an injury which incapacitates them for some other physiological reason alone, but lays them up in hospital or in their home and prevents them from going back into the workplace, and that time spent in the home is the source of a psychological injury, then the extension of the compensatory coverage will not extend to that degree. This is something the dissenting judges in Donoghue v Stevenson outlined as a problem when the decision to create tort law was initially described into the English common law. The question in the dissenting judgment – and it is a very interesting judgment to read – was, ‘Where do we take this? How far do we push the liability boundaries?’ That was not at all clear. Lord Atkin and the others who gave the majority judgment in that matter were confident they could describe particular boundaries to what this meant. Time has demonstrated those boundaries had not been well defined. I can well hear the minority judgment in that case ringing in my ears. It is difficult to put boundaries around these things.
The law of tort and the law around insurances, boundaries, proximity and those sorts of things are well established nowadays. There are still greyish areas. The fact is even if you go all the way back to Donoghue v Stevenson and all of the subsequent cases, the argument is about the boundaries: what are the exposures, what are the standards and what is the burden of proof, etcetera?
Those things will continue to be tested when we create new legislative instruments like this because this is all about boundaries. If you overexposure insurance companies to the point where they simply do not work and they are not solvent, then you achieve nothing. If you tighten the boundaries you put in place to the point where there is almost no claim possible, then all you basically have is an extortion racket. Somewhere between those two extremes you have to find the real world.
That is what this legislation attempts to achieve; it describes boundaries. The members might not be happy about some of these boundaries. The members for Nelson and Barkly have described their concerns about some of these boundaries. I also have concerns about boundaries from the other end of the argument. What is the exposure to the insurance companies? Does the exposure go to such a point that we risk an insurance company’s insolvency to such a point it refuses to trade? With our legislative wand, we have created an environment which is so exposed that premiums are either ridiculously high or the insurance companies will refuse to cover. That argument could go on for days. We could fill volumes and textbooks with those arguments. Any number of textbooks have already been filled with those arguments. I will not seek to illuminate the House in any greater detail suffice to say if you are interested enough, read the text books.
Madam Speaker, on balance, this is legislation which finds the right balance between exposure and coverage. For that reason I am grateful the minister has bought this into the House today. I am grateful, I think, for the support of the members opposite. In any instance it is about striking a balance which is fair and equitable, or at least just. For that reason I support the bill before this House.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I had an interest in this when it was first brought on for a couple of reasons. The McLeod family has a strong connection with the Daly, and my son’s partner’s father recently died of cancer. He had served as a firie here for about 25 years.
As you know, Madam Speaker, you and I both had an interest when it was first brought on and pushed for the inclusion of volunteers. I am happy that the volunteers have been included in this legislation. In the second reading speech the minister referred to including volunteers of NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Bushfires NT. Specifically in my area there are 23 in the volunteer bushfire brigade, at least two in NTES and two in FERG units. The volunteer bush firies fall under Bushfires NT and NTES and FERGs fall under police and emergency services. That issue was raised in the meeting we had with them.
One of the issues I would like the minister to address – for information as it has nothing to do with the legislation – is record keeping. In emergency services and FERG, all members who attend an incident are logged. The second reading speech said they must have attended at least 150 exposure events within any five-year period for certain cancers or within 10 years for the remaining cancers.
I want some assurance – more than from the police – that the records kept by NTES, FERG and I presume the volunteer bushfire brigade, are in fact kept by the lead agency. That is one question I have, but is the only issue I found in the legislation which I fully support.
I note the change for people over the age of 67 was also mentioned. Many of the volunteer bushfire brigade people are getting older and the ones on call during the day are usually retired. I am grateful for that.
Madam Speaker, that is all I wanted to say. I am glad this government has backdated this legislation and that volunteers have been added. I wish everyone success in getting it through today.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forward the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill – a long-awaited bill – for debate. I also acknowledge that in cyber space – either tuned in through the live-stream audio or visual – a number of firefighters in Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy and Darwin are watching and listening to this debate.
I thank the member for Barkly for taking the lead for the opposition in this debate as our shadow minister for Business, highlighting the unacceptable delays in bringing this bill forward, and with it some of the significant shortcomings of the bill which mean the Territory’s Labor opposition is unable to support every element of this bill.
As the shadow minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services as well as Public Employment, my contribution to this debate will focus on the section which deals with eligibility of firefighters for compensation for prescribed disease, namely the insertion of section 50A and regulation 5B, which provides for prescribed disease and qualifying periods for firefighters, and regulation 5C, which provides for prescribed number of fires and prescribed firefighting period.
We welcome, as do firefighters and their families and union representatives in United Voice, the news of changes at the 11th hour yesterday, that the government has finally capitulated and agreed to amendments which change the retrospective date for claims from 25 August 2012 – the date of the Territory election – to 4 July 2011, the date when the first presumptive legislation in Australia was enacted by the federal Labor government.
Even better is the sunset clause, a period of three months which will, in the words of yesterday’s media release from the government:
- ‘… give living career firefighters a window in which to make a claim under the presumptive legislation as if the presumptive legislation had an open commencement date.’
I remind the House that the opposition’s private members’ bill on this subject also included a sunset clause, which was a generous two years.
‘Snogger’ Snowden is one of four Territory firefighters battling cancer who was previously ruled out of eligibility to claim, due to the August 2012 date. These people are now covered. He said to me via an e-mail last night, ‘The rescuers have now been rescued’ – well, to a point anyway.
Henceforth, this sunset clause will have to be known as the ‘Snogger’ clause. ‘Snogger’ Snowden, the OIC of the Nhulunbuy firies, sent me a snippet from yesterday’s Arafura Times, our weekly newspaper, with this article titled, ‘Brave firefighter hopes Govt helps fight for life’.
I seek leave to table that document.
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER: I will read a section from it, because it is important:
- Nhulunbuy firestation Station Officer Colin Snowden has battled testicular cancer since 2009, spending many months in hospitals in Darwin and Sydney, away from his family, receiving stem cell rescue therapy and chemotherapy, and spending time on the isolation ward.
‘It was touch and go for a while – it nearly killed me’, the 48-year-old said.
The passionate firefighter said he had to use up 15 years of long-service leave and ended up being on half pay for two months while in hospital, which put additional stress on him and his family.
- ‘Going through the treatment is easy – you’re fighting for your family, for your life.
‘But it is really hard when the family gets affected when your financial situation nose-dives.
‘If our care was taken care of, we would have one less thing to worry about and could fully focus on getting better.’
In the photograph included in the article was a photograph of the member for Katherine who was visiting Nhulunbuy at that time. The article reads:
- Deputy Chief Minister, Willem Westra van Holthe, who visited Nhulunbuy firestation last week (pictured above) said the NT Government would ‘listen to members of the fire service’ and do ‘what we can to address their concerns in this new legislation’.
I thank the member for Katherine who perhaps may have helped influence these amendments which have been presented. I also thank Annie Hess, the journalist and editor who runs the Arafura Times who has been in town for a relatively short while. As a volunteer firefighter she understands how important this issue is.
While the government may like to crow that it has listened to firefighter and community concerns it should be ashamed for failing to listen and act for more than two years. Two years is a long time when you are battling cancer trying to get well, to heal, to recover, to care for your family, care for your kids, work out how on earth you will make ends meet when there is no money coming in, you have used all of your long service and sick leave and the prospect of financial insecurity looms large and frighteningly real in front of you.
It was always a no-brainer that a handful of firies with existing cancers, developed inconveniently and very untimely after the election, would not be eligible to lodge a compensation claim. It was not only a no-brainer, it was incredibly mean spirited.
When in government the opposition made a commitment in the lead-up to the last election to establish presumptive cancer legislation so the Territory’s firefighters who developed certain types of cancers would be taken to be work-related for the purpose of claiming compensation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. We presented not one but two private members’ bills in August 2013 and a year later in 2014 and both were rejected. I commend the work of the member for Fannie Bay, Michael Gunner, who worked closely with firefighters, consulted widely, researched and presented those two private members’ bills.
Shamefully, those bills were rejected out of hand by two of the five or six Business ministers we have seen during the two-and-a-half years of this chaotic government. I do not think I will ever forget the scene in this Chamber on that evening on Wednesday 28 August 2013 when the member for Fannie Bay introduced a private members’ bill to amend the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Unable to wait until the following General Business Day when he would normally speak in response, the member for Fong Lim launched into a tirade about this all being a political ploy and that the CLP would clearly not be supporting the bill.
The public gallery that evening was full of our hard-working firefighters, some with families, partners and their supporters, as well as their union representatives from United Voice. As the member for Fong Lim ranted those in the public gallery stood and turned their backs. The Business minister then, the member for Fong Lim, chose to turn his back on important legislation and on the needs of firefighters – and they turned their backs on him. I have never witnessed such a scene in this Chamber.
The procedural matters of the House dictate that a year must lapse before legislation can be reintroduced, so we brought our private members’ bill back before the House seeking again bipartisan support from the CLP government, but once again they rejected it. This time, with the Chief Minister as the Business minister, in his churlish seven-minute contribution to an important debate this is what he had to say – I will not read all seven minutes of it, but I will read some excerpts from that speech on 22 October 2014, five months ago:
We will come to parliament very soon with some of those changes; we have been chatting in Cabinet about some of the last minute variations in some of these areas … hopefully for introduction next week, with some changes to support those firefighters.
…
I have recommended to Cabinet, should any changes come forward to our proposed bill – which I anticipate may come – that it should not be backdated to the date when it was first raised as an issue in this Chamber, but taken back to 25 August 2012, when we came into government. I cannot take it any further beyond that ... That is a guarantee from me, should it pass Cabinet in that form. That is for any proposed bill we may bring in; this is not your legislation. That is a commitment and something that will be considered later this week in Cabinet.
He rejected the private members’ bill, important and sensible amendments to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which would have supported Territory firefighters with cancer. However, the Chief Minister, like his predecessor in the role, the member for Fong Lim, was not listening or was not interested in listening. He failed to look beyond the political lens to recognise that the bill was brought forward as a response to support firefighters and to address their concerns, as well as union, community and Territorians’ concerns.
As per what I have just read from his contribution on that date, he was absolutely steadfast and not budging from that retrospective date. He has been rolled on that one well and truly, and thank goodness for that. He made an undertaking that we could expect to see something from the CLP by way of cancer legislation for firefighters by the last week in October 2014. There was still nothing for another five months.
In the last sittings last month, with yet another new Business minister, the member for Sanderson, we finally saw movement, but only after continued protests and pressure from firies who held a rally on the steps of parliament on the first sitting day of the year. It was not a political stunt but a public protect organised by firefighters on Tuesday 17 February to highlight once again the need for cancer legislation, and to exercise their democratic right to have their case heard in the hope the CLP was listening.
The following day, on Wednesday 18 February, in response to a question I asked the minister in Question Time, the member for Sanderson responded by saying;
- Yesterday the Labor Opposition Leader engaged in a cynical scam with firefighters as the pawns ...
What a shameful response from the minister who now has carriage of this bill. He caused deep offence to firefighters and missed the point entirely. Our firefighters are not interested in political gains. It is not about politics for them, it is about having a fair go and having legislation in place which protects them with a fair pathway to compensation for contracting cancer in the course of doing their work. These are the people who run into danger and into fires when others run away. As one workplace rep said to me on behalf of his colleagues, ‘Our job is to go to somewhere that is unsafe’.
The minister will continue to defend his words but it is too late. He caused great offence, well summed up in a Letter to the Editor on 20 February which I would like to read onto the Parliamentary Record. This letter was published on 20 February 2015 in the Northern Territory News and tagged as the Letter of the Day with the heading ‘CLP fails firies on every level’. It reads:
- I am appalled at Peter Styles. Less than 24 hours after he labelled firefighters cynical scammers he released a statement purporting to be ‘Fighting for NT firefighters’. The CLP has not supported firefighters at all during its three years of unstable government. It has done nothing but stall and insult firefighters every step of the way. It has rejected any attempt to consult on the issue of presumptive cancer legislation and actively sought to water down our original legislation. It is a disgusting abuse of parliamentary privilege that these people are able to abuse and disrespect one of the most respected professions in the world and not have to answer for their words or face those they seek to discredit. They put pressure on our management, which divides the organisation and injects disharmony into the ranks. This costs money through further attrition and increased overtime and recruitment. It is a reflection of their attitude towards everything. They are arrogant and unapologetic. They have shown no regard for the safety and wellbeing of firefighters or the public. They have labelled firefighters lazy, fraudulent, greedy scammers. But if a firefighter responds to these insults they risk losing their job. So, who will stand up for us?
Name and address withheld.
There was something quite significant about the rally on that day. There was a small gathering of firefighters and yes, members of the Labor opposition who had been invited to attend, along with union members and representatives from United Voice, and representatives from other unions there in solidarity. United Voice has stood shoulder to shoulder with firefighters to move this legislation forward. I am sure the invitation was extended to members opposite in the CLP government.
What was significant and poignant was not just what was said but what was done. Veteran firefighter Jock McLeod read the names of more than two dozen firefighters who had lost their lives to cancer contracted during the line of duty, along with those who are cancer survivors. For each of those names a firefighter’s helmet was placed on the steps of Parliament House by a colleague. It was one of those moments where actions speak louder than words. The image of those helmets will remain with me forever.
Having scribbled out that list of names before coming to the rally, Jock McLeod’s voice faltered as he read them. He told me after he was not sure he could get through the roll call and had not realised until he was on his feet calling out the names of colleagues – all of whom he had known during his 47 years of service – just how emotional and tough the battle has been for this legislation. Of course there was deep sorrow for the loss of good family men taken by a disease which is the scourge of firefighters and a risk they face in their chosen career every day they are on the job.
I thank the Minister for Business for his change of heart on this matter of retrospective claims. He met with United Voice and its firefighter representatives a week or two ago.
I also thank the member for Brennan, as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, who met with United Voice and firefighters as late as yesterday to finally not only listen, but to act on what they had been asking for, for more than two years. It is the right and decent thing to do for these firefighters and their families. I pay credit to you, member for Brennan, having stepped into the space where the Chief Minister swore – indeed in his words guaranteed – he would not allow retrospectivity via the sunset clause to allow these firefighters access to compensation.
I suspect the firefighters, like members of the NT Police Association, would want you to stay on as the Police minister because you are not arrogant; you are decent and have listened and acted. I hope that in your future party wing meetings you might convince the member for Braitling that after the inquiry into police and serious allegations of corruption have been competed he might have cause to think twice about his plan to resume as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
Today the NT News online has an article about what these amendments mean with a photograph of Jock McLeod. Yes, Jock McLeod is eligible for compensation. In fact he was lucky – if you can use that word in the same breath as the word cancer – that the onset of his cancer was within the time frame of post-August 2012.
However, three others are not mentioned in the article. Tommy Lawler, Colin ‘Snogger’ Snowden and Danny McManus have cancer and now at least have some comfort that they will be eligible for compensation with this sunset clause. It will not cure their cancer, or stop the cancer returning for those in remission, but it will provide financial security for them and their families.
In that photo alongside Jock McLeod is Tommy Lawler, another career firefighter. While Tommy’s claim was progressing under his insurer, it comes as a great relief that he is now covered by presumptive legislation. I was able to speak with him this morning and he talked about what he described as the ‘financial potholes’ firefighters like him fall in, and how stressful it has been constantly trying to scramble out of those potholes. He said, ‘The road has been so bumpy – so bumpy. After fighting, fighting, fighting for cover this is a huge win.’
These are some of the most selfless and humble individuals you could hope to meet. In conversations I have had with each of them they expressed the relief this provides them and their families. More importantly – and it is very personal for these four men – this legislation will provide protection for those men and women who are firefighters in the Territory, be it career or volunteer firefighters, who may develop cancer and will not have to fight the battle they have fought to get this legislation through.
Despite changes to the retrospective date for compensation claims, there are elements of this bill as they pertain to firefighters which are not acceptable. Jock McLeod said to me last night, ‘Here was the chance for the CLP to present the best coverage in the country and they blew it. At least it is something. But how can you cut out 25% of the recommended cancers and be happy with it?’
‘Snogger’ Snowden said the same thing, ‘We are only going to see a watered-down legislation that covers 12 out of 16 proposed work-related cancers’.
Danny McManus is a veteran firefighter diagnosed with work-related cancer in 2006 – thankfully one which is on the prescribed list. When I spoke with him, he said he cannot believe that prescribed diseases listed in the private members’ bill have been knocked off the prescribed list in the CLP’s bill, including skin cancer, lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases.
Firefighters are exposed to so many hazards and, as Danny explained, ‘When you have a bushfire burning in this climate, you do not always have the opportunity to wack on sunscreen before going on the job and responding to an emergency’.
While PPE has come some way, breathing in fumes with no idea what hazardous materials might be present in a fire poses and enormous exposure. Firefighters’ lungs are exposed in the line of duty, despite advances in personal protective equipment.
I take this opportunity to thank and salute firefighters who have fought so hard to see this presumptive legislation through. It is still not what is should be, but it is a step further ahead. On behalf of the members of the opposition, it has been a great honour to work with them to try to reach this outcome today.
I apologise to those firefighters in the same breath. Though we tried for more than two years to get this legislation through from the opposition benches, the unwillingness of the CLP to give bipartisan support in rejecting two private members’ bills has been the obstacle. The CLP has also failed to recognise how difficult it has been in the time they have allowed to drag on – more than two years. This time has been painstaking for firefighters and their families affected by cancer. That wait is unforgivable and has been too long for some.
I thank firefighters for their resilience and determination to not back down, and I take great comfort knowing that my family, my constituents and I have such dedicated individuals who serve and protect Territorians so often in the face of grave danger.
I also place on the record my thanks to the dedicated staff of United Voice, the organisers and advocates who have worked tirelessly to support the Territory’s firefighters with this legislation. The CLP government has little time for unions. It has failed to recognise the important role that unions play in representing workers to advocate for a fair go. United Voice was only allowed into negotiations very late in the piece.
In the words of Clarence Darrow, an American labour lawyer, on the contribution of unionism to society:
- With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than any other organisation … that ever existed. They have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character … , than any other association … .
The principles of unionism and collectivism are simply not in the DNA of conservative politics and the CLP government, where those principles of honesty, integrity, fairness are sadly lacking in too many of its members. It is why we on this side are members of the Labor Party – called so for good reason. We stand for workers, jobs and many other things, but first and foremost we stand to support workers and their families.
While this bill still needs more work it remains inadequate for fair protections for workers. I take this opportunity to remind the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and the Minister for Public Employment that the firefighters’ EBA is now long overdue. It is high time you work with Territory firefighters, listen and engage genuinely with them to recognise the hard and unique work they do, and settle their EBA. It is shameful that their EBA expired in September 2013, 18 months ago.
I can only hope the new Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and the new Minister for Public Employment will be more diligent. As the Minister for Public Employment, I hope the member for Katherine will be a better listener than the former minister, the member for Port Darwin, who failed firefighters in those negotiations and offended them when he described them as ‘self-interested and greedy’.
Member for Katherine, I will endeavour to seek a briefing on progress with the EBA. My last meeting was set up on the fifth floor with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment in February. Unfortunately it was cancelled because it was the day the CLP went into lock-down following the failed coup the night before.
Supporting our firefighters is clearly something that is close to the hearts of Territorians who recognise the incredibly valuable work they do. That is why 26 284 Territorians signed this petition calling for this legislation to be supported which was tabled in this parliament by Michael Gunner, the member for Fannie Bay, on 28 August 2013. More than two-and-a-half years down the track we finally see this legislation here – not entirely what we were hoping to see, but it is a step in the right direction.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude my contribution by thanking the current Business minister for bringing this bill before the House. However, as I said, it simply does not go far enough. On those grounds I and my opposition colleagues advise we cannot support this bill.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this afternoon I talk on parts of this legislation as it pertains to firefighters, both professional fully paid and volunteer fire officers. I will not comment on issues that have been raised by the crossbenchers or the member for Nelson.
Labor was in power for 11 years and if it wished to bring in similar legislation, had ample opportunity to do so. The other states of Australia have introduced legislation and talked about it for many years. The House of Representatives passed legislation in 2011. There has been an enormous number of studies in Canada, America and Sweden in regard to this matter, so it is not that there has not been information material around.
It is not one fire that kills an officer or volunteer fire officer, it is dozens of fires. For a firefighter, whether they be a paid or volunteer professional, the problem of dying as a result of an occupational disease is much greater than the chance of dying at a fire scene. A death is a death. Compensation should be no different whether that person has faced one fire or 300 fires, as is often the case with people who contract various diseases.
As I mentioned, this issue of environmental cacogenic problems has been around for years – many decades. The first study linking cancer and occupation was carried out by a London surgeon called Dr Percivall Pott in 1775. His studies linked the occupation of chimney sweeping to testicular cancer. He studied and worked with the people of the time. The results of his studies showed there was a direct link between those whose work involved soot and the resulting cancer. He published his findings and others have picked up on his studies. The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH, are still relevant today and are produced in every fire.
Another key study done in 1998 – in more modern times – was at Mt Sinai Hospital in New York. That study was undertaken over a number of decades and involved many fire officers. What were the agents the fire officers were exposed to that were causing their cancers? The big word that came out of that study was ‘plastics’.
There are 70 000 synthetic chemicals in a typical household. There is more exposure now than ever before and there is an increased chance of cancer. There are more plastics, more chemicals and composition of chemicals today than ever before. There are more deadly carcinogens. The combining of chemicals has also presented a problem for those who face fires in structures or any other place.
The carcinogens that fire officers faced in years gone by, and still face today, include PAH, benzene, arsenic, asbestos, vinyl chloride, radon, radium, soot – boring old soot – tar, oil and formaldehyde just to name some of them. The list is much longer than that.
There was a study done in Cincinnati in Ohio by LeMasters and Lockey in 2007. Again, it was a large study. The exercise was the largest firefighter cancer study done in living memory with 110 000 full-time fire officers from 32 studies. As a result of the studies there was a direct correlation between chemical exposure to fire and the risk of cancer. That study showed what had not been considered before: that not only was it about the inhalation of chemicals and substances, but also the absorption through skin and other ways.
There have been many studies, both past and present, leading to legislation similar to what we are discussing today. Canada has legislated – not all their provinces, but most of them – as have many USA states, Sweden and France, to name a few.
With the increase in chemicals in our society and the increased prevalence of plastics, the increase in personal protection equipment has been good. However many of these studies are now showing that personal protection equipment is not keeping up with the change in the number of chemicals, plastics and substances that confront fire officers when they attend a fire, whether it be in a house a car, a shed or anywhere else.
As I mentioned, Australia passed legislation on 3 November 2011 and many of the other states have also debated and passed similar legislation. Some is similar to ours, some is not. Our legislation, as I understand, is the closest to the Tasmanian legislation, given the structure of the full-time and volunteer professional officers is very similar.
I thank the minister and the department of Work Health, as I think the members for Daly and Nelson referenced. All three of us attended a briefing some months ago in regard to this legislation as it pertained to the professional fire officers at the time, and questioned why the volunteers could not be covered. The advice we received at that meeting was there was no reason why they should not and could not be covered because they were covered in Tasmania. That was heartening to us because as the member for Daly said, he has many bush fire brigades in his electorate, as I have.
One of the key studies that has been undertaken in Australia very recently is the landmark study by medical researchers of the Monash University, funded by the participating member agencies of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council, or AFESAC, which includes the NT. They carried out a national retrospective study on the incidence of firefighter mortality cancer which was prompted in part by many overseas studies identifying excesses of several types of cancers in firefighters.
There was an advisory committee consisting of representatives of different organisations including those from the Northern Territory Fire Service: Mick Ayer, Bruce Byatt and David Pettit. I am not sure who is on the committee now, if it still exists, because two of those people have left the Territory.
There was a technical committee attached to this study the members of which were experts from Canada in particular – given they had done much more work than us – and Australia. It is a good report and I recommend anyone who has an interest in this to get a copy. I have read some of it. In a very general and quick summary they found with most types of cancer, the potential and prevalence was elevated in fire officers because of the work they do. It is a comprehensive study. Their methodology is very sound and it is very thorough.
I recall the minister saying volunteers are now included as well as professional paid officers. In regard to the legislation before us, if a firefighter is diagnosed with one of the 12 cancers identified in the bill and serves as a firefighter for the relevant qualifying period it will be presumed the cancer is an occupational disease and is therefore compensable. There should not be any question about that. The evidence from studies around the world, going back to Percival Potts, tells us there is a direct link and that should not be questioned anymore.
With the volunteers now included, an additional requirement is proposed which is that the person must have attended 150 exposure events within any five-year period for brain cancer and leukaemia, and 10 years for any of the remaining 10 cancers. As bizarre as it sounds they can qualify – I hope they do not. This requirement ensures the presumption only applies to volunteers who have had some measurable exposure to the hazards of fire.
Minister, what is the definition of an exposure event? I think I know what it is, but I would like to know how it is defined in the legislation. Is it a grass fire, a structural fire or do they have to fight a car fire? Many people mistakenly think volunteer fire people just attend grass fires. They attend many grass fires, but that is not all they do. Sometimes they attend structural fires in support of the NT Fire Service and sometimes they are the first people to attend a car fire. I would like to know exactly what the 150 exposure events are and how that will work within the legislation.
Also, how will the NT Fire Service have its volunteer brigades document these activities? How will the Bushfire Council NT, through its volunteer brigades, document what qualifies as 150 exposures? Do they have to be at a fire for half-an-hour or an hour. and will it be a grass or a structural fire? I am not quite sure. The reason I am asking is I want to explain to my volunteer brigades exactly so they can get it clear in their minds what is involved. The volunteers in my electorate I have spoken about before are, under the NT Fire Service, the Humpty Doo brigade, the Koolpinyah brigade and the Virginia/Bees Creek brigade, and under the Bushfires Council NT the Elizabeth Valley brigade and the Lambells Lagoon brigade.
Last Sunday I was at Koolpinyah brigade’s annual general meeting. This Sunday the Elizabeth Valley bushfire council people are having their annual general meeting which I will be attending. It will be good to give them something more definite on this. I have already advised them this legislation is coming up. I sent them the minister’s media release and some other documents. Feedback to date is they say it is good legislation, but I want to follow up with some very specific details. Is there someone in the fire services department who will be managing this? Is there someone on the Bushfires Council NT who will be managing it?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you, the minister, and the government for finally bringing this to fruition. Like any new legislation, it might have some teething issues. I am interested in how the government, through the NT Fire Service and the Bushfires Council NT will talk to the brigades about the new legislation. I would like to understand the processes for consultation so they understand exactly what is involved because it is very important, especially at this time of year leading into the fire season.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a fair bit to get through, but it is the intention of government to take this to the committee stage because there are some amendments which need to be put through.
I thank all of those people who have provided input into this legislation today and spoken about it before. I also thank those who have been involved in helping government and the minister ensure we covered as many things as possible when designing this legislation. From my understanding of this legislation compared to other jurisdictions, we will have the most generous scheme of all jurisdictions.
Listening to today’s debate, it was unfortunate that some members in this House wanted to provide political comment and not deal with the law. Some of the commentary was social in nature rather than dealing with the law and concentrating on the benefits of this legislation. It will make it easier for firefighters in the Northern Territory.
I recall one question the member for Goyder asked about 150 events. My advice is it is considered an event when a firefighter attends a fire which could be simply back burning, controlled or not. That is how that is determined.
I have a bit to get through to wrap up before we move to the committee stage, but I note I will not have time ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, we will be back at 9 pm. Do not worry about that, we will be here.
I am disappointed that the opposition had an opportunity to support this legislation and make a difference. They talked a lot about supporting our firefighters, yet they are not, from what I heard earlier, supporting this legislation. I found that astounding.
This legislation has taken some time but there have been many discussions and much consultation. I take my hat off to people like Tommy Lawler and the firefighters’ union. They have provided constructive feedback on this legislation, which is why it has taken time to construct. The opposition wanted to play politics with this today and it appears they want to continue to play.
Let us look at 4 July 2011, when the then Labor federal government introduced this legislation. They had a full 12 months in government but chose to use it as a political football in the lead-up to the last election. They are all about politics, not about what is right for firefighters.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. You can conclude your remarks when we return to Government Business. Being 5.30 pm it is now time for General Business.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Establishment of Task Force
to Tackle Ice Epidemic
Establishment of Task Force
to Tackle Ice Epidemic
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Legislative Assembly calls on the Northern Territory government to immediately establish an interagency task force of Police, Health and Children and Families to report in six weeks on actions that can be taken to tackle the ice epidemic, and that this Legislative Assembly calls on the Northern Territory government to incorporate an ice room in the existing emergency department construction at Royal Darwin Hospital.
We have already had some debate in this Chamber today in regard to the establishment of a select parliamentary committee to investigate and report on actions in relation to tackling ice. I invited the government to genuinely consider bipartisan support for this motion which is kept simple in its terms. There is no political rhetoric or accusation in its terms. It is very clearly a motion that seeks to establish an interagency task force of the relevant agencies they have been identified as key stakeholders in the terms of reference contained in the select parliamentary committee, and the establishment of the ice room at Royal Darwin Hospital. I hope the spirit in which this motion was presented last sittings is picked up and the government can see its way to being bipartisan in its responses today, just as we have welcomed the parliamentary select committee.
On 18 February this year I called on the CLP government to respond to growing community concern over the epidemic of methamphetamine – ice – abuse in the Territory. I sought the immediate establishment of an ice room at Royal Darwin Hospital, given that there is a construction project under way now to expand the emergency department. I also sought the establishment of this interagency task force of Police, Health and the Department of Children and Families and urgent action to tackle this scourge.
It may be a pure coincidence of timing that on the day we are debating this motion in the Chamber – which has sat on the books since last sittings – the government saw fit to establish a parliamentary committee. Except for the coincidence in timing, it is great if we can have a truly bipartisan day today.
Let the experts across these three agencies be brought together with a specific task of providing advice to the CLP government on the actions that can be taken to tackle the scourge of ice. As I said earlier today, when we were debating and supporting the establishment of the parliamentary committee, it does not need to be an either/or; both can work together in tandem. In fact, an interagency task force would be well placed to provide the expert advice to the parliamentary committee.
In the meantime, we could identify real action that can be taken between now and September that can meaningfully help people in the Territory deal with the ice scourge. Why not let that happen? Why would you say things ought to remain on hold?
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an opportunity for the CLP government to show some maturity and bipartisan support for a motion which is put forward in goodwill and good faith. I look forward to the response.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I respond to the Leader of the Opposition’s call in relation to approaching this in a bipartisan fashion. I will not be critical of the Opposition Leader; I will take her at face value on this topic. That does not automatically mean I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, but I will treat her with all deference and courtesy because I genuinely believe that as a representative of the people of the Northern Territory in this instance she is genuinely trying to make an impact and a change.
As a consequence of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion, I have spoken to the minister for Police about this matter. We have discussed how we step through this process. The minister for Police and I believe there is time to get those three CEOs together. Whether or not we create a task force per se, let us get some advice from them. Any reasonable government would say to the experts in the field, ‘Let us see what your expertise says’. I can advise the Leader of the Opposition that I have told my Department of Health and my department of Child Protection to get together and start talking about these issues. In fact, we are already looking at some things we might be able to do.
I also heard the Leader of the Opposition’s call in relation to what she terms the ‘ice room’. As I said this morning, I am fully aware of the presentations at the hospital of people who present with psychoses across a raft of areas. Whilst I know the politics of calling it an ice room, I would reserve the room for psychotic episodes rather than ice-induced psychotic episodes, otherwise you prevent the room being used for other purposes. I know it sounds like semantics. However, I am not deaf to her calls.
I visited Cowdy Ward and spoke to the nurses there. I have also, on a number of occasions, been to accident and emergency.
I correct the record on one thing. This morning the Leader of the Opposition said she was under the impression there were two separate powers operating in two different places in the hospital. This is not so. If you invoke the operation of the Mental Health Act …
Ms Lawrie: No, it is without the operation of the Mental Health Act.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, it can be invoked anywhere in the hospital, with those powers of restraint. If there is some procedural problem I am happy to look at that, but I was not aware of different power existing in different parts of the hospital. If there is then that is a shortcoming in the system, and I would be the first to respond. A health practitioner may exercise their powers under the Mental Health Act and apply reasonable restraints for people having a psychotic episode ...
Ms Lawrie: Not the Mental Health Act.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry?
Ms Lawrie: It is not under the Mental Health Act, where the issue is.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I look forward to some correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition. I will keep a balanced ear to the comments she is making, and will be happy to embrace any system improvements.
There are rooms in the Cowdy Ward which are capable of dealing with people with psychotic episodes. However, as I said this morning, it is the very nature of the randomness of timing when people come in. Some days and weeks you will get none, then you will have a clump of three or four and then your resources will be pushed in Cowdy Ward. People who present with some sort of ice-derived psychotic episode are usually hallmarked by three things: paranoia, anger and strength. Supressing somebody having a psychotic episode from this particular drug creates a triumvirate of bad behaviour, which poses a risk to staff.
I try to minimise the risk to staff at all times. It cannot always be done. You cannot always put a shield around the staff to the point where they are always protected. Because of their nature, staff will take risks. Frankly, I will not say in these circumstances I encourage it, but I understand why people step up and help.
My response to this is that I, hopefully with the acquiescence of the minister for Police, want to get those CEOs together. I give you a commitment that we will definitely look at the issues you have raised in relation to the security of how people move through the hospital to see if there is a requirement for a restructure. So you have been heard.
I am genuinely not being flippant or dismissive. I will not go so far as to say we have met the terms of this motion or that we would create an ice room per se. I will take the advice, and if it turns out we need to do some more work in Cowdy Ward and we have some protocols to get people from accident and emergency to Cowdy Ward very quickly – if that is what the experts want operationally – then that is fine. If there is room at accident and emergency for something like you are describing, and it is necessary, I can be convinced. But I am waiting for some advice from the department.
I am genuinely not ignorant of what you are saying, and I do not want to be seen to be contrary for the sake of contrariness. I am saying that this is a real problem we acknowledged today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in regard to this motion, we can do a couple of things. Perhaps we can adjourn it. Alternatively, I would not support the motion in its current form, but I can guarantee that at some point in the future I will report back on what steps we are taking as a government. In fact, I suspect we will probably give that evidence to the parliamentary committee that was created today.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have heard both speakers. I have some concerns. I support, in general, the concept of what the Leader for the Opposition is trying to do. I will explain the issues I have. One is over a word and the other is how the second section is phrased.
I will go to the second part first. It says:
- … that this Legislative Assembly calls on the Northern Territory government to incorporate an ice room in the existing emergency department construction at Royal Darwin Hospital.
I have been trying to prepare for this debate for quite a while and have been making sure I get my facts straight because there is nothing worse than not knowing what you are talking about.
I had discussions with staff at Royal Darwin Hospital. I got permission to talk to one of the people involved. I have some of the figures in relation to what happens at present. The indication is we do not need an ice room at the moment. That is not to say we should not look at it, but I was given the number of people being admitted who they know are affected by ice. The number of people going there is an issue in itself, but we need to investigate how we can improve the figures I was given of somewhere between one and three people per month. One of the issues in relation to that is data is not routinely collected, so that area has to be improved.
They have a plain room they call the Oleander Room where there is nothing to disturb a patient. That is where they put an aggravated patient who could cause problems so they can calm them down and they can be observed by the staff. Hopefully they will calm down.
There is also the Resus Room. I presume that is the resuscitation room. Two of these large rooms are used. They put people in there who may have heart problems, because ice is a dangerous drug and can cause other ill-effects. It is a very large space in which patients can be managed and watched. The information I was given is these patients can have difficulty with palpitations and those types of things.
The other advice I received was if someone comes in they like to de-escalate them as soon as possible. They calm them down. So options exist at the hospital. I am not saying we do not need an ice room, but the information I was given today is there are sufficient appropriate rooms at the hospital at present to deal with people who come into the emergency department suffering from the effects of ice.
If we are not routinely collecting the data are we planning for the future? If there are more people than we know about, do we need to consider whether we need an ice room in the future?
I understand where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from, but that is why I asked the staff at Royal Darwin Hospital about the present situation. That is the information I received today.
It is good if we can get a task force, as the member for Port Darwin said. We could do that now. Some of this debate has changed. When I was collecting this information I did not know there would be a select committee, which has made things good in one way. I thank the opposition for raising this question because it has brought this on. The member for Blain said he has been pushing this for a while, but this motion might have caused the government to do something, otherwise it may have sat for longer. I appreciate that the Opposition Leader has proposed this.
It is interesting that she used the word ‘epidemic’. I do not think I have all the documents here, but there are a few other terms you can use. ‘Epidemic’ is a debatable term. It can send the message out to people that we are surrounded by people affected by ice. I mentioned before an article from a magazine titled, ‘Ice Epidemic: Fact or Fiction?’ That is part of the reason I spoke to people at Amity and Banyan House. I had some good conversations and I thank both of those organisations. Sometimes, as an Independent, I ring and ask if I can get a briefing. The table was full of staff, and people gave up their time to give me some indication of what they do and the complications they have in their lives, dealing with people with all sorts of drug addictions. I thank Amity and Banyan House for the time they gave me. It does not make me an expert but it gave me a good understanding of what is happening.
Generally speaking males are affected more so than females. That is not to say ice is good for anyone, regardless of gender. One thing the committee will look at is that it appears to be in certain Indigenous homelands. Hopefully we can cut it off before it gets any worse. I will not mention those homelands and towns at the moment; they will probably be raised during the committee hearings.
Another issue which was raised is when people add alcohol to their system they are difficult to control. As staff said, there is no treatment for it. I suppose the only treatment is detox in the sense that you have to withdraw from it. My understanding is it stays in the system for about 72 hours. Someone said it was four times better than the feeling you get from cocaine and diminishes over time, then people go for a higher amount and it gets worse. It is surprising that there are a reasonable number of older people, somewhere in the 25 to 35 range, who use it. It is a major factor in violent and verbal attacks on and threats to people.
Users cannot empathise with people, their cognitive controls disappear and they think they are bigger than Ben Hur and no one can talk any sense into them. They lose that community connection and the problems go on. The poem the member for Brennan quoted today summed up all of the issues in relation to this matter.
Banyan House is residential, so it provides an opportunity for people to stay there and get treatment over a longer term. What concerns me is the cuts to funding, especially for Amity. I do not know about Banyan House. I acquired the figures and asked them how much they were funded. Banyan House gets 75% from NT, 25% from the federal government and that runs out at the end of June. If they are not topped up by then, unfortunately some of the services Banyan House provides will be affected. My understanding is Amity will also be affected. I do not have the amounts here.
There is something we could do – and that is what this debate it is about today – before the committee provides its recommendations. I ask the government to please talk to the federal government about restoring the funding for those groups.
We have major problems. I went to Salvatore’s for dinner at 8 pm last night and some people working in this building went for dinner also. They were assisting a poor woman who had been bashed. She was an Aboriginal woman, obviously drunk, who had been bashed and was bleeding. They assisted and called an ambulance for her. But there were a large number of people in Smith Street and Knuckey Street last night who were blind.
We have major problems with drugs, not just ice. To take away the funding from some of the people and the good groups we have in the Territory who understand Territory people we need to help work through these ongoing problems associated with drug addiction, is a backward step.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I plead with the government to support this in general because we want to support the gist of what the opposition is asking for: that we need to do something quickly. The ice room we can argue the toss over. We need the Minister for Health, and maybe the minister for Police because this is an issue of law and order as well, to ask the government to ensure funding continues for these important groups. That would be a positive step that might come out of this debate today. I do not know if anyone from the government will talk on this, but if they would at least take up that issue and find out whether we can get funding that would be something positive out of tonight’s debate.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion on the ice epidemic brought to the House by the Leader of the Opposition.
I will start by reflecting on the comments by the member for Nelson about funding. That is an important point that has been made a few times over the last couple of days in parliament, particularly about recent cuts under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. My colleagues on this side of the House have been asking for more advocacy on behalf of our local services which are losing funding. Many of them are doing incredibly important work around these sorts of issues and substance misuse more generally. We need to get behind them as they have proven their worth and that they are effective. They are having to scope down what they are able to do in our community as a result of these funding cuts. I ask that when we are discussing this issue we also look at advocating for these services which are losing out because this will have an impact on the increase of ice use we are seeing.
There has been much discussion in the Chamber today about the physical effects of the drug known as ice and the health and social impacts that ice is currently having on our community. It has complicated the debate a little that we have debated this twice today. It is positive that we have established the parliamentary inquiry. As I mentioned earlier I do not think it has to be either/or but there needs to be immediate action. There are things we can do now and there is evidence and expertise available now. Communities have come together multiple times on this issue, more times than we have, and they already have solutions and ideas to offer. There is a sense of urgency about this, but also the need for us to consider the long game, the long term and how we address this issue.
It is clear from the debate that occurred in the House today that through discussions members have been part of across the Northern Territory, there is a consensus in our community that action on this issue is timely. I appreciate the sense of bipartisan support in debates today. It makes a nice change and the community will appreciate that mature approach to this issue as well.
The community has been crying out for action on this issue for some time and we have heard the pleas. In February this year the motion was raised in parliament with a call for immediate action to stem the problem of ice and the associated harms that are spreading through our community.
I tweeted earlier some of our discussion about parliamentary inquiry establishment and somebody tweeted me back saying, ‘That is great, we actually need to move quickly and we need some immediate action’. That is supporting everything that has been said today.
The work of the established select committee will be so important, with stakeholder and community consultations over coming months. It is a privilege to be part of this committee. I hope it will produce results that will see positive change across the Northern Territory.
As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition and others this morning, there is already a wealth of studies, reports and implemented actions in other jurisdictions we can draw from, and more importantly, experts and those with life experience of these issues in the Territory, who have been talking about this for some time. It presents a solid evidence base from which we can start taking action to reduce the harms of ice, and hopefully other drugs as well.
The two solutions that have been identified and could be implemented immediately are the interagency task force and the establishment of an ice room at Royal Darwin Hospital, to be taken into account in infrastructure planning. There is no reason why an interagency task force could not be established now with relevant representatives from the various frameworks and organisations that have been referred to here today, including Health, Justice and Children and Families.
I appreciated the member for Port Darwin’s comments about the conversations already initiated with CEOs of those departments. I am looking forward to hearing the outcomes of those. It would be great to get some time frames of when they might occur and when we might hear about the outcomes. It is a positive step forward. Many positive actions have come out of the discussions today.
I suggest that an interagency task force would be complementary to the outcomes we all hope to achieve. We can create a strong plan of action that is sustainable, far reaching and has longevity. We can take action now to stop the impact of the use of ice from growing while we are doing that work.
Those on the ground, including family members, are telling members of this Chamber about their experiences and what we can do to support them. I hope others support this motion as I do. The implications of taking immediate action are positive in providing support to those who work on the front line. This is about supporting those in our community who are dealing with these issues now and will be dealing with them for the next six months while we continue to look at the best approaches over the long term. They are working with people who are often in desperate places and are providing the support needed to our families and communities who are calling out for it.
This is a motion that has been brought forward to support those who are supporting our communities and families who need it the most. The motion shows our support and value of those experts who can be working in collaboration now. It works alongside the inquiry established by parliament today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion to the House and note that her action appears to have prompted a more fulsome response to the community concern about the growing ice problem both nationally and in the Northern Territory.
We are talking about ice, and the disgraceful effects of crystal methamphetamine. I note the National Crime Commission released a report today that includes the worrying fact that ice is now the third most commonly used illicit drug in Australia nationally, following cannabis and MDMA. That report also noted that ice is highly addictive and used more often and for longer periods than any other drug. It is concerning because the use of this drug has been shown to increase the risk of psychosis and mental illness as well as aggressive and violent behaviour.
In December last year NT Police Superintendent Fuller said of ice users:
- … they’re not rational. These people become violent very easily.
While we appreciate the establishment of the select committee with a report required in September, we still call for the establishment of an interagency task force of Police, Health and Children and Families to report in six weeks on the actions taken to tackle the ice epidemic, and have immediate action to incorporate the establishment of an ice treatment room as part of the scheduled improvements to the Royal Darwin Hospital accident and emergency department.
We have called for that because there is a need for immediate action, as well as deeper consideration of issues and long-term actions by the select committee. We have called for that action because that is what people in our community are calling for – action. People in our community have to deal with this very real problem right now, every day. They want to know that government is focused on this problem and taking action right now. Staff at Royal Darwin Hospital need access to a safe treatment room for ice patients now. Police need to see evidence that the government is working on holistic responses, not just relying on police action and treatment of users and victims at our hospitals. NGO service providers and families want evidence that the government has a plan for this problem and is not just relying on the already overworked NGO sector and families themselves to deal with this difficult problem.
I am especially concerned about the Indigenous families grappling with the impact of this new, insidious drug. Families in Darwin are looking to government for leadership in tackling this head-on as has been shown by other governments. Outside of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs and our other larger regional centres, people want to know that the government, not just the police, are on the job working to make sure the tentacles of this national epidemic do not reach their bush communities.
This is a real concern, as reflected in the National Crime Commission report released today. It specifically mentioned the rapid growth of the methamphetamine problem across cities and regional and remote communities. In particular, the report touched on the vulnerability of rural and remote areas which have not previously been exploited by the commercial and criminal suppliers of methamphetamine. There is a problem right here, right now.
The most recent public NT Drug Trends report, in 2013, stated its concern about the increased availability and use of crystal methamphetamine in the Northern Territory. It was concerned the market had become more established in the Northern Territory. The establishment of a new market, a bush market, needs to be addressed right now before it becomes better established.
In November last year The Australian newspaper reported the findings of another NT report on alcohol and other drugs not yet publicly released. It said there is direct evidence of injecting drug use in Borroloola. Health centres are concerned about increasing numbers of clients presenting who had used or been exposed to ice in Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin and Nhulunbuy. Police have told us non-Aboriginal staff in some of our larger remote towns are also using synthetic drugs. There is evidence locals are experimenting with these new drugs, both in town and out bush, when they are available.
Wendy Morton from NTCOSS has told us that in the Top End NGOs are seeing a 100% increase in people presenting with problems related to ice. Chris Franck from Banyan House has told us the number of people being treated for ice addiction has doubled over the last year. Superintendent Tony Fuller has told Territorians police have seized three to four times the amount of ice than in the comparable period last year. This is deeply concerning. Bernie Dwyer from Amity has told us, ‘The tide is rising, we do not know how high it will get. But we also need to look at prevention. How do we actually provide information to the community and to people who may be considering using particular drugs?’
I recently read Victoria’s Ice Action Plan which has been released, and I want to comment on that. The six stages are: Helping Families; Supporting Frontline Workers; More Support, Where It’s Needed; Prevention is Better than a Cure; Reducing Supply on Our Streets; and Safer, Stronger Communities. It is a great document which I am sure the committee will look at in their meetings.
It is important that we make sure we include working with employers and the union movement in relation to fly-in fly-out workers and their access to ice.
Last month the Chief Minister told us that prevalence has not been seen in the NT, but there is some evidence. Then he said he would ask for another report. In June last year the NT News highlighted the growing threat and impacts of ice in the NT community.
We on this side have heard the call from ordinary Territorians. We need to head off this ice epidemic. We need an interagency task force to provide a focus and target a plan. We need urgent action and a report back on what can be done in six weeks. We need to give confidence to Territory families and frontline workers that we are focused on this threat, the real and present danger of ice, and the risk of harm to our kids and families. We need action and responses targeting prevention, treatment and harm reduction, including harm to families and the community through ice-related criminal activity.
Superintendent Tony Fuller also said in January this year about ice:
- There is a lot of violence associated with it, there’s also a lot of property crime ... People have got to pay for their habits.
We have called for immediate action. We welcome the select committee which has now been established, but we should still establish an immediate interagency task force as called for by the Leader of the Opposition to develop immediate responses. We have called for that action because it is what people in our community want. People in our community have to deal with the problem right now. They want to know the government is focused on this problem and taking action right now. Staff at Royal Darwin Hospital need access to a safe treatment room for ice patients now.
I welcome the announcement by the Chief Minister and urge his government to build an ice treatment room at RDH and develop a community education program on the effects of ice and the pain it causes families and the community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I guess I will get a nod or a shake of the head.
Mr Elferink: We will not support the motion in its current form, but I guarantee I will get back to you on a way forward.
Ms LAWRIE: Sure. Given the advice from the Leader of Government Business who also holds the important portfolios of Health and Children and Families, I suggest it without the prescriptive ice room you want to seek further advice on. Would you support it with an amendment to just the interagency task force, which is essentially three agencies working together? Interagency task forces do not require the CEs, they are often the delegates of CEs, who are specialists …
Mr Elferink: Oh yes, whatever they think is fair.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, of course, it is their choice.
If we drop the specific ice room, you would not have an issue with the interagency task force? Then we can support it.
That is not a ruse or political game play, it is simply just trying to get on with some experts being able to advise you and other ministers between now and September on what I describe as the low-hanging fruit. What are some of the easy, simple rubber-hit-the-road solutions that can be done within the agency budgets that could meaningfully help Territorians?
Mr Elferink: We are in the position where we are negotiating this on the floor. My suggestion would be perhaps we can adjourn this, have a conversation about it, and come back when we next sit. We can work out some words that this motion can be amended to. If you want to adjourn it until some other point we can do that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, Leader of the Opposition please.
Mr Elferink: Just a suggestion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, Attorney-General, but the member speaking cannot adjourn it.
Ms LAWRIE: I will not bother adjourning it in the sense that I am hearing the intention of support and spirit from the Minister for Health and Minister for Children and Families of my call for the interagency task force to be established and get on with whatever early actions could be taken in those key portfolio areas across government.
The experts know and they could get on with some of the quick, easier, more obvious actions to take on the ice surge whilst the select committee is getting on with its job. In the spirit of the conversation we have had in the debate, I thank you, Minister for Health and Minister for Children and Families for that. I hope the minister for Police, who has not participated in the debate, will work with you in ensuring that all-important police arm of the interagency task force is at the table.
That being said, we know the motion will be defeated. We will not be dividing because this is not about politics. We had originally intended to divide, prior to the government coming to the party with the select parliamentary committee.
I appreciate that there will be a true focus on the needs of Territorians. Many things bring us to being in this Chamber and the way we want to work with and be representatives of our communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is very near and dear to my heart. I sincerely thank the government for picking it up and taking it on. Many families I know well are affected by a relative who has sadly and tragically been captured in the grip of ice addiction. I know my friends who work in Police, Health, Children and Families and in the Alcohol and Other Drug rehabilitation sectors are all heartened by this focus. Thank you for that. I recognise the motion will be lost, but we have the good support of the Leader of Government Business in the interagency task force and a commitment to look at the establishment of a dedicated room at Royal Darwin Hospital, so thank you.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Development of a Man-made
Island in our Harbour
Development of a Man-made
Island in our Harbour
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Assembly recognises the community is calling on the CLP government to listen and rule out the development of a man-made island in our harbour.
The proposal for Nightcliff island has caused a large degree of angst in my electorate in the suburbs of Nightcliff, Coconut Grove and Rapid Creek and across the broader Darwin community. The lease issued by the Northern Territory government of over 98 ha in Darwin Harbour off the coast of Coconut Grove and Nightcliff has caused angst amongst our community. The proposed project has the potential to have a significant impact on the environment and the amenity of Nightcliff, Coconut Grove and the broader Darwin community.
Residents are concerned the government has kept them in the dark. Again I come to the House with a number of questions for the government which issued the lease. What is happening with the proposed development? I urge the minister responsible to come into the House tonight and let our community know what exactly is happening.
The people of the Northern Territory and the residents of Nightcliff and Coconut Grove need a straight answer. The community has been left in the dark throughout this whole process and invitations to discuss the proposal and the government’s role in the granting of the lease have not been accepted to date.
People are extremely concerned and are ready to jump to action. When Nightcliff residents became aware about a secret lease off their coast for an island development, there was widespread concern and apprehension about the impact of the proposal. These apprehensions were expressed loudly and clearly at the meeting of residents and concerned citizens at the Nightcliff Sports Club last year.
While not exhaustive, the legitimate community concerns raised at that meeting included: the development proposal is not consistent with the existing zoning; residential development is not compatible with existing biodiversity; it is an exceptional development proposal and may not go through the normal planning process; the project is a surge zone and could redirect water into current residential areas; there could be adverse impacts on Indigenous values and culture; adverse environmental impact on the Ludmilla Creek and Ludmilla Bay areas; the biodiversity implications for turtles and dugong as well as other marine life; there is no comprehensive social and environmental assessment of the proposal; and the proposal is not included on the draft Darwin Land Use Plan which was released at Christmas time last year with little consultation.
We need a feasibility study to inform discussion on whether we want this kind of development. This proposal is not consistent with heritage, recreation or ecological values. There is no traffic management plan or assessment strategy and no social impact.
In January we saw another flurry of activity and questions from residents who looked at planning maps for another rezoning and noticed an area on the map near the proposed Nightcliff island which had been given a lot number. I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Ms FYLES: In January this year, concerned Darwin residents – not just from the Nightcliff, Rapid Creek, Coconut Grove area – were looking at another planning notice and came across what appears to be a balloon-shaped lot in the sea off Nightcliff labelled No 7265, which I have just tabled. The community groups looked at similar maps for notices covering the area where this had not appeared. They were most concerned and surprised and it caused a stir. My office was again suddenly inundated with phone calls and e-mails.
Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment staff told people it was to do the land management’s provision for Nightcliff island. Given that there has been silence about the proposed island for so long, with the ministers and government denying knowledge of anything, the community has great concern and we wonder what is going on when lands management makes provision for identifying a lot on the map. Why the secrecy? What is going on? Who approved the creation of the lot? These are just some of the questions from concerned community members. The public needs to know what decisions are being made in planning, considering there has already been a huge outpouring of angst and concern about the project.
As far as I am aware there has been no further development in drilling and surveying the area. My constituents and I are very concerned and would appreciate the minister answering that direct question about the lot number when responding to this motion.
As the proposal for granting of the lease and the approval to begin preliminary drilling was all done without any community consultation, you can understand why residents are now asking what is happening with the development.
The essential problem with the Nightcliff island proposal and many other decisions made by this CLP government is that they are out of touch; they are not listening to the community. I hear this constantly as I move about my electorate and in other centres and communities I visit throughout the Territory. Why will the government not listen to the very real concerns of ordinary citizens about significant proposals like Nightcliff island?
In a recent statement to the House the Chief Minister said:
- The government I lead will be 110% focused on Territorians ...
When I addressed this issue last year the then minister for Lands and Planning repeatedly emphasised this was not a government project and they had not proposed the development. However, both he and the Chief Minister expressed enthusiasm for the idea, with the Chief Minister going as far as describing the idea as ‘a visionary concept’.
Vision and consultation are not mutually exclusive. Last year I moved the following motion in the House:
…
granting of a five-year Crown lease for 98 ha of Darwin Harbour without going to the community consultation about the concept of a man-made residential island
failing to undertake community consultation or preparing a social and environmental impact analysis on the proposed Nightcliff island before issuing a lease and allowing geotechnical drilling to take place, and
we call on the minister to stop moves to develop a residential island in our pristine harbour and accept our community values that Darwin is a city built around a uniquely beautiful harbour.
That was a year ago almost to the day, and the response from the government was appalling. When we debated the motion, they just laughed and mocked it. I get a sense tonight we will be in for the same thing, which is appalling and highlights the arrogance of the CLP government.
Minister Chandler spoke about population growth and the need for development:
- My point is, the development of Nightcliff mirrored the growth of the development of Darwin, and must continue to do so.
I have no issue with planned development such as the city of Weddell. We need a beautiful harbour surrounded by cities – Darwin, Palmerston and Weddell – but we have a problem with an island in our harbour. Our community is already full and we have huge population increases with infill anyway. It is not an affordable housing initiative. Sydney has housing issues, but we do not see them proposing a man-made island in their harbour.
The member for Sanderson said about the development along the foreshore area of Nightcliff:
- … along the foreshore of Casuarina Drive – I wonder if the member for Nightcliff would say, ‘We should just bowl all those units over. Let us just get rid of them. We do not like them. Let us plant some nice trees and grass there.’
This highlights the arrogance and how you do not get it. We are not talking about development or being anti-development, we are talking about a man-made island in our harbour.
We kept hearing in debate last year that government members did not necessarily agree with the island but thought the process should go ahead. That highlights how out of touch the CLP government is. There has been no process to date. The community does not want an island in the harbour. It is a simple, strong message and the government needs to listen.
I know we will be hearing from minister Tollner later this evening, but last year he commented:
- … this is the middle of the harbour. This is not where other people live, and you have already worked up a bunch of self-righteous outrage about the audacity of somebody doing something in the harbour where no one lives. No one lives there, therefore no one should be allowed to.
You do not get the point! It is our harbour, a pristine area with marine life. Mr Tollner went on to say:
- I do not know what we are supposed to be supporting or not supporting. That is the point of this motion. You say, ‘No, you can’t support that’. What are we supposed to be supporting?
As a government you do not get it. You are so shamefully out of touch that you do not understand the community does not want an island in the harbour. We are not talking about people being self-righteous and saying because they do not want to live there they do not want others to live there. It is about building a man-made island in our natural environment and is the most ridiculous idea.
Last year it was summed up by our now Planning minister who in debate said:
- You whip hysteria, you have a bunch of people sitting out the front of parliament at lunchtime similarly ignorant to what is going on.
He went on to say:
- Everybody concerned about this is obviously ignorant there is a process involved ...
Minister, how dare you be so rude and call the Nightcliff and the broader Darwin community ignorant. Perhaps you are so ignorant you think it is acceptable to issue a lease without any consultation to build an island in our harbour. There was no consultation, no conversation with the community, you just issued a lease.
The government made a commitment that the Planning Commission would involve the community at the earlier stage. However, drilling was to commence less than two weeks after the community finding out about the island proposal. That is another example of the CLP government keeping Territorians in the dark, cutting red tape and cutting green tape and fast-tracking development without consulting with the community.
The minister was responsible for granting the Crown lease. There were many questions at the time about the granting of that lease. Where does that lease stand now? Are the people using that area, especially at low tide, trespassing? Has it been rezoned? We are calling on the government to tell it straight.
The community has made it clear that Nightcliff island should be dead in the water. Why does the government not say that? The government has been suspiciously quiet on the issue for a long period of time, but we know that does not necessarily mean it is over. All it took was a simple lot number on a map for the community to express their angst again. There is a history of keeping this proposed development hush, hush. The Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan was released more than 12 months ago and the island was not even mentioned. The island was given significant development proposal status some time ago by the government. That was interesting considering the government said it is not its proposal and it does not appear on land use plans, but suddenly it appeared as a significant development proposal. That information is very select and thin on the ground.
Under the Planning Act, the definition of land includes land covered by water, which includes the sand flats and tidal areas in Nightcliff. Currently this land is zoned as PS, Public Open Space in the Northern Territory Planning Scheme. The primary purpose of the Public Open Space zone is to provide public areas for recreational activity, which is exactly what you think your harbour should be. Development should be limited for public use and enjoyment consistent with the recreational opportunities of the land which has minimal adverse impact, if any, on nearby property. I am not sure how a man-made island in the harbour which would house 3000 people, with some buildings as high as 14 storeys, is consistent with the current zoning of the land and the surrounding amenities, or would have minimal adverse impact. That is ridiculous.
People live in Nightcliff and Coconut Grove because they love the beachside lifestyle. Walking along the foreshore and heading out on to the sand in the evening is extremely popular. At this time of year, when it is hot and you cannot swim, it is still relaxing; many people do it. You are allowed to take dogs there without them being on leads. It is a lovely, popular lifestyle and people want that, which is why they live there. We have seen infill. The social impact we are seeing from infill is an issue, and the suburb is getting busier. A man-made island does not fit with its character.
There is also ecological importance not only of the harbour and the marine life, but the mangroves there. Some of those mangroves are the most pristine in Australia. The area is used at high tide and low tide. I have been fortunate to visit the area a number of times, being a local resident, but also to take a walk through it with one of Australia’s leading mangrove experts. They are sand flats so they are not muddy. There are amazingly different species of mangroves there. The eucalypt mangroves are similar to eucalypt trees and the leaves are scented. It is a hugely important ecological area. By building an island you would kill those mangroves. Everyone knows mangroves are the lungs of the harbour and killing them would have a huge impact on Darwin harbour.
It is laughable to suggest that proper consultation was carried out because a simple advertisement was placed in the NT News. The process where a lease was granted and permission was given to start drilling has impacted on the government’s reputation. People think it shows how out of touch government is. There has been no consideration to environmental impacts or infrastructure ramifications of such an area. We are talking about a tidal area. We already have such varying and extreme conditions with the real risk of cyclones. There have been a couple of cyclones in the last few weeks.
Last Wet Season we saw huge erosion issues along the foreshore of the Darwin coast. The council has built some rock walls in the immediate area where the island is proposed, and already the rocks and sand are washing away at each end. That is trying to protect the foreshore and the coast, even without building the island. You have to consider how feasible the island would be and the impact it would cause by channelling water different ways, especially in the Wet Season. By removing those mangroves will we see water channelled into areas of Nightcliff and Coconut Grove that previously were not at risk of storm surge? Will we see more erosion? One would think so, considering the erosion we have already seen.
The government’s secrecy, unwillingness to consult with the community and constant refusal to be upfront with people about this development shows how out of touch with people it is. Government members are worrying about their self-interest rather than governing the Territory. This proposal highlights it. It is 15 months since a lease was secretly issued over the Christmas period, questions have been ignored and it has refused to answer for many months now. The community has a right to know what is happening. The lease was granted without consultation, the offshore drilling has been conducted and the pleas and concerns of local residents have fallen on deaf ears. I am not just talking about the people who gathered here at parliament or who have attended community meetings. I know many people have contacted ministers and CLP members of parliament expressing their concerns, which have fallen on deaf ears.
Since the beginning stages of the proposal my office has been inundated by anxious residents wanting to know what is happening, how the CLP government has allowed it to happen and why the government has failed to consult the wider community.
It is an issue that comes up every week. Whether I am at the markets, out doorknocking or at the local school, people ask what is happening. Even today, at school drop-off, ‘What is happening in parliament?’ ‘Yes, talking about Nightcliff island.’ People are appalled at the lack of consultation and communication from this government.
Previously I talked in the House about one local resident, an 11-year-old student, Bella, who letterboxed her street with a survey asking them what they thought. She then came to me, as the local member, to make sure I knew her and her neighbours’ views. If a primary school student can speak, why can’t the government? If an 11- or 12-year-old primary school student has the ability to ask her community, it cannot be that hard for a government that injected $33m into the Chief Minister’s office for advertising and PR to come to Nightcliff and talk to people. The residents in my community feel they have been treated with contempt.
I am not alone in expressing my distrust in this government’s willingness to act in the best interests of Territorians. The government’s record of working with and governing for the people is appalling. We are asking for a straight answer. The community has some questions. How did the project end up becoming a significant development proposal? Did the minister refer it to the Planning Commission? They are simple questions.
We suddenly had a lease issued with no consultation, and it was described as a ‘significant development proposal’. On what basis was the developer granted a five-year lease? When will the CLP demonstrate it has the capacity and the intention of governing in the best interests of all Territorians? How will the CLP ensure the leases for development are never given without community consultation? What will happen with the lease agreement when it expires in 2018? Will the lease area be removed from planning maps? Finally, but most importantly, what are the future plans for the Nightcliff island project …
Mr Chandler interjecting.
Ms FYLES: I pick up the interjection from the minister. I hope he is paying attention because these are the questions our community wants answered.
The evidence against the development of this project is overwhelming. I have already presented petitions and spoken in the parliament about results of surveys conducted which categorically show the community is not in favour of the wreck and ruin of precious natural habitats. It is just not on. Our community does not want a man-made island.
I have talked about the extreme weather conditions we experience in the Top End, although they are somewhat lacking this year. The likelihood of Darwin Harbour being exposed to cyclonic activity will happen, whether it is this year or next year. We already have flooding issues …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nightcliff you have the call.
Ms FYLES: The current flooding issues in and around Rapid Creek, the vulnerability of the foreshore area to erosion are enough evidence that an environmental impact analysis needed to be carried out. I was astounded to learn that the EPA last year, before the lease was issued, determined it was unnecessary. For the EPA to say it did not feel that an environmental impact analysis was needed for a development that would involve reclaiming 98 ha of the Nightcliff foreshore shows how short-sighted it is.
This proposal concerns our beautiful harbour. There is nothing nicer in the Dry Season than heading across to Mandorah or Mica Beach, getting out on the water and enjoying the harbour, or just heading to East Point, walking and fishing.
The harbour should be safe from development. There are areas of land along the foreshore that might be zoned as parks and open space. The member for Fong Lim would love to develop it all. We understand those areas may come up for claim but the harbour – water? That is what astounds most people. We would not be having this conversation if it was Sydney Harbour, so why not treat Darwin Harbour with equal respect?
The harbour should be safe from development but under the CLP nothing is safe. The NT government has granted the Crown lease for the project in open space in a harbour people thought would be regarded as special and never developed. Now that Crown lease has gone further with the issuing of a lot number. The minister has a lot to answer for. Why was that lot number issued? Why was there no consultation? Why did it take people looking at maps for another project to suddenly find the lot number? Will we wake up one day and you will have built the island? It feels like that sometimes.
An island such as this will cause huge social impacts. I have already spoken about the density in the Nightcliff, Coconut Grove area; there are a lot of units, a lot of infill and the traffic gets heavier each year. The Nightcliff Woolworths used to be quiet but with the population growth now it is not, but that is fine. There are social impacts which need to be addressed such as the schools, the infrastructure and the environmental impacts.
The island will impact on our mangroves and our harbour’s health. Mangroves are a crucial part of the ecosystem and important to the health of the harbour. I have talked of the time I spent in those mangroves. It would be sad if the island is built and we lose them. The mangrove experts that I have spoken to assure me that a man-made island will kill the mangroves. You are not killing the mangroves to build the island, but building the island will change the flow of water affecting the tidal flows the mangroves need. As well as being the lungs of a harbour, they are an important habitat for birds, mammals and fish; they provide a breeding place and give protection.
Some people think mangroves are smelly, which is probably what the member for Fong Lim thinks, but they are important in ensuring we have water quality by filtering pollutants and stabilising and improving the soil, and are a key in protecting our shoreline from erosion. That is something we are grappling with in some of our other coastal areas in Darwin. Those mangroves protect that coastline and foreshore.
If you would listen to experts, something I know the member for Fong Lim does not like doing, mangroves are best left untouched. The only time mangroves become a problem is when they are disturbed. That is why Darwin Harbour mangroves are protected for conservation under the Northern Territory Planning Scheme. It is obvious the mangroves will be disturbed if the developers proceed with the island. The lack of respect the government is showing shows they are not serious ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask government members to keep their conversations a little lower please. It is difficult to hear. Thank you.
Ms FYLES: It is good that the Deputy Speaker wants to listen to this. Maybe you can have some influence on them.
There are huge environmental impacts. I have spoken before about what has happened in other areas of Australia. Certain states have imposed moratoriums on canal estates. You only have to look to Cairns at East Trinity Beach where they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to rehabilitate the area. As I understand it, in the 1960s and 1970s they constructed a wall and floodgates which stopped the tidal water. More than 30 years later, after much clearing and reclaiming the environment, they are trying to dry out the marine mud. The area has excessive amounts of acid and sulphate in the soil. They are spending millions of dollars trying to rehabilitate their mangroves and we are proposing to kill off acres of ours. It just does not make sense. Why would we make the same mistake in our beautiful, pristine Darwin Harbour? If you do not believe me, go to Cairns and have a look. It impacted on their fish stocks and the natural environment which then affected people more than they thought.
I do not understand why, with our beautiful harbour and acres of land – member for Fong Lim, you always talk about looking at the land whenever you have flown into or out of Darwin. Why do you not follow the experts? We have a beautiful plan for our city – Darwin, Palmerston and Weddell – but you are now threatening to ruin it with an island in the harbour. You are threatening to ruin the rural lifestyle so many people want because you are too lazy to build Weddell. It does not make sense. We are not talking about Labor/CLP ideas. The plan for the Darwin/Palmerston greater area was done in the late 1970s early 1980s. If we look at other cities and the mistakes they have made, we do not want to make them here.
People value our harbour. They love getting out, whether it is recreation on the tidal flats or in a boat.
Obviously there is huge cultural importance to the area we are talking about. The Larrakia people have been hunting and exploring these bays for thousands of years. There are cultural values to the greater Ludmilla Bay area. The Kulaluk fish trap is one example. None of these views have been taken into account because before issuing the lease and allowing a lot number …
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: The chitter chatter is a little rude, but that is okay.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue please, member for Nightcliff; you have the call.
Ms FYLES: We know the cultural significance of the area was not taken into account before a lease was issued. They did not consult the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. I know that because I asked the previous minister. If I was the minister asked to sign off on a lease I would at least talk to the community about it and look at some of the impacts. Where are the environmental studies? No, we do not need those. Perhaps there is some cultural significance to the area. Should he talk to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and get them to do a report? No, that would be a bit too silly. There are so many reasons why this island is wrong – social, environmental and cultural.
The island is not wanted by the community. From day one the process has been secretive and hasty, without consultation, undermining local residents and people of the NT. We need to hear from the government what is going on. Why did it issue the lease in secrecy? Why is there suddenly a lot number? It is time the government listened to the people.
I repeat our community’s call to the Minister for Lands and Planning to stop the moves to develop a residential island in our pristine harbour. It is not too much to ask to listen to what local residents and citizens of the broader community want. They want their harbour preserved. This is not a NIMBY; this is across the Darwin area. People do not want to see an island in their harbour.
I give special thanks to the community for its ongoing support. In my job I get to speak here, which is a great privilege. The Environmental Defenders Office (NT) and the NT Environment Centre, which have both sadly been affected by huge funding cuts, have provided a great deal of resource and support to the broader community. This is not just me, this is the community getting together, holding events on the foreshore and working on market stalls.
I moved this motion during the last sittings hoping we would get to it, but time did not allow that. This is off the back of the January lot discovery which has pushed the community to again ask questions. The community is anxious about this and will not allow it; it is not on. The government needs to respect the broader Darwin community and answer some of these questions ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask that the member for Nightcliff be given additional time to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Ms FYLES: The member for Fong Lim did not know the standing order number but that is all right. The Treasurer does not know his numbers.
I thank the community. The issue is extremely concerning and the community stands ready to act. Hopefully the minister and the government will finally listen. We will hold this government to account. There are so many reasons why this proposal does not stack up, and there are so many unanswered questions about how it has reached this point. The government should do itself a favour, start to listen and answer these questions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing this motion to the House. It is raised my awareness somewhat and I have to be honest here ...
Ms Fyles: You always have to be honest.
Mr TOLLNER: No, no, I am coming clean; I have had enough of this government. As the opposition rightly said, it is the worst government in the Territory’s history. Everything is going to custard with this government. I will make a statement here; I will turn my back on this government and bell the cat. It is time we came clean. It is time we ended the secrecy.
I received a phone call last night, on my magic telephone, from Peter Pan who had Tinker Bell with him. They are visiting the member for Nightcliff’s house tonight and they have some grave concerns. I have tried to talk to members of the government about this, but no one seems to listen. I have been trying to talk to the Chief Minister. I told him about the phone call I received last night on my magic phone.
I honestly think we should have a state of emergency over this because it might come as a surprise, but Captain Hook is turning up. He has bought that 14-storey building on Nightcliff island and is preparing to put rocket turrets along it, and bomb the people of Nightcliff.
I cannot bottle this up any longer. It is time we came clean. Member for Nightcliff, I do not know if I am breaking ranks with government here ...
Mr Elferink: I promise not to tell.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes. While I am at it, there are plans to have a large-scale unicorn breeding facility on the island as well ...
Mr Vowles: Are you calling it Elferink?
Mr TOLLNER: No. This is all top secret stuff I am saying at the moment. Another lot number is about to be issued for a giant island right next to it, which will house the workers from the unicorn farm and get things happening.
I should also let people know that Ayers Rock has secretly been hollowed out, and we intend to refuel the new submarines Australia is building from Ayers Rock ...
Mr Elferink: Elvis Presley finally has a job.
Mr TOLLNER: That is correct. The member for Port Darwin is not happy with me, because he spent the last two-and-a-half years tunnelling from the Great Australian Bight into Ayers Rock, so there is a way for the submarines to get there and refuel.
The Chief Minister has great plans to run nuclear trains up and down the railway. We will see nuclear trains, if this government is allowed to continue. I honestly think the Territory will not be ready for it, especially when Captain Hook arrives, because the people on his ship, the pirates, are not very nice people at all. It is a worry.
My friend Don Quixote has been warning me for some time that these things are happening, and it is only now the member for Nightcliff has made these matters public that it is time we came out and fessed up about the unicorn farm and people sending rockets onto the good citizens of Nightcliff from this island.
You cannot see it on any map; you have to have special sight. Clearly that is what the member for Nightcliff has – special sight. I cannot see it myself, but others like Peter Pan have told me that it exists. I am sure if the member for Nightcliff can get out of here quick enough, she will have to be home by dark because that is when Peter and Tinker Bell intend to visit her and talk with her and some of her constituents about the concerns they have about this fellow, Captain Hook. The movies are true, without a doubt.
Maybe the member for Johnston can duck around to the member for Nightcliff’s house. I note he is also very concerned about this island. He must have special vision with good eyes, which I suppose comes from playing lots of cricket. They see islands where most people cannot see them, which is an amazing ability. How blessed the member for Nightcliff is.
In some regard I can see the direction of the member for Port Darwin and why he wants to turn Ayers Rock into a submarine refuelling station and the Chief Minister wants to run nuclear trains up and down our railway line. It is obviously to cart unicorn meat to South Australia. They tell me it is quite tasty. In any case it all sounds quite concerning.
As a member of this government, I have been convinced by the member for Nightcliff that this island is real and somehow it is on a map. It does not seem to matter what the government says, there is talk of a 14-storey building, the secrecy and the cover-ups. The fact is nobody sees this island, except for the members for Nightcliff and Johnston.
I was told by the member for Arafura that this island has an Aboriginal name. It has been there for a long time. Clearly it is something we did not understand. Of course, with the mangroves, pity the poor prawns. But unicorn meat is of more value than mangroves.
I have been told by the developers that it is unlikely that any island could ever be built because they have been doing some geotechnical drilling, and all they have found with this drilling is mud and more mud. They have not struck rock anywhere. I do not know whether there ever will be a proposal for an island. Clearly I am missing something because the members for Nightcliff and Johnston have been organising protest meetings. They know the exact nature of this island and the damage it will or is doing to our harbour. They even know there will be a 14-storey building on it. I had no idea these things were happening until I received that phone call last night on my magic telephone.
I do not know what you say to a motion like this. This is one of the most bizarre motions I have ever seen in any parliament anywhere. But good on the member for Nightcliff. I suppose there is not much else to be concerned about if you have a dreadful island like that in your electorate, complete with 14 storeys, dead mangroves everywhere, cyclones sweeping through, storm surge and developers and people who cannot afford it because it is not affordable. You wonder where you are going when people make these comments in debates.
Probably what the government I formerly belonged to, until I found out about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell, was saying was, ‘Yes, we are open to ideas. We will not say whether something is a good or bad idea until we have some information about it.’ If we were not living in fairy land, allowing people with big ideas to test those ideas is not a bad thing. One would have thought that had they struck rock with their drilling, maybe they would do some assessment as to how far down the rock was, what it would cost to build something on it and whether it was worthwhile putting a proposal to government, or indeed the people of Nightcliff, to ask them what they thought. Given the fact they found nothing but mud, I do not think any island is likely in their view.
But maybe I am wrong. Maybe Tinker Bell will catch up with the members for Nightcliff and Johnston. The member for Johnston has incredible eyesight; he will probably see Tinker Bell before she sees him. She is not a moth, you do not have to hit her with a cricket bat.
In any case, Mr Deputy Speaker, what do you say? I am thankful she brought a bit of levity to the parliament. It has been a bit of fun. Maybe she might want to get on and talk about something else.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a hard act to follow when the member for Fong Lim is in a mood like that. I did not come with a series of punch lines or jokes.
The member for Nightcliff has brought a motion to this Chamber on behalf of her constituency members and people beyond Nightcliff who have genuinely raised this issue with her. We have heard the member for Johnston has participated in public meetings as well.
I went to a public meeting at Nightcliff Sports Club where there were quite a number of people who had concerns about the process that had taken place. In many respects, the member for Fong Lim buried the lead with the geotechnical drilling results being mud and more mud. It would have been good to have led with that. That is quite important information about where this island currently stacks up. As the member for Fong Lim also said, they do not rule things in or out.
This was an instance where people thought the idea of an island in the harbour was something you could have ruled out earlier. As much as the member for Fong Lim had fun – I thought we had heard most of his greatest hits already, but he has given us a new bunch of Tollner lines. He will keep us amused for many years to come I am sure. One of the problems when you treat an issue like this with hilarity – it might be funny at 7 pm on a Wednesday in parliament – is that some people have come forward with these concerns quite genuinely and seriously. Whilst I have no doubt the member for Fong Lim enjoyed himself just then, as did others, the people who have raised these concerns with the member for Nightcliff and other members of parliament want this to be treated seriously.
While the member for Fong Lim may find it amusing and hard to believe why people are worked up on this issue, one reason they are is this government has a history over two-and-a-half years of not being transparent and consistent. That leads to concerns when things like this happen. As the member for Fong Lim said, there has been drilling and geotechnical work done in this area. People had reason to be concerned about an island in the harbour. We have concerns about this government’s approach to transparency and consistency in planning, and more specifically about community purpose land and spot rezoning.
This area of our harbour is open space. It is not quite community purpose, but you could say it falls in the same ball park of the community wanting, using and accessing that space. There have been concerns in the community about the government’s approach in a number of different areas of community purpose land and spot rezoning – in this instance in the harbour.
One reason why they felt these concerns had merit is this government’s approach to rezoning. In this instance, what happened in January was a lot number was issued, which obviously hit a raw nerve. There is a bruised electorate at the moment that has seen a number of bad decisions which do not make logical sense and are not going the community’s way. They are quite genuinely worried about the Nightcliff island proposal.
We can see why when in my own area we have seen Community Purposes land at Sports House rezoned. Both sides realised that Sports House was coming towards the end of its economic life and something needed to happen. Where our approach differs is we felt it still needed to remain zoned for community purposes. We had flagged, going into a number of elections, that when we felt Sports House was coming towards the end of its life, it was probably appropriate to have a seniors focus with the seniors village next door and across the road.
Pearl, which runs the seniors village, was definitely interested in that site for providing community purpose in care for senior Territorians who are still in their homes. The recurrent benefit of that to Territorians – keeping people out of hospital beds – is worth it as opposed to the potential benefit of a one-off sale. We saw community purpose land rezoned despite strong community objections and contributions. There were very thoughtful, very considered objections to that rezoning.
That is one example of why people aware of the Nightcliff island idea have concerns. We have seen a lack of transparency and consistency. Decisions made by this government when applied to other scenarios caused concern.
There is another proposal in my area at 4 Blake Street, The Gardens. That has not been decided yet, but again goes to this idea of rezoning community purpose land. The City of Darwin has objected to this rezoning application. I will read from its submission:
- The City of Darwin objects to the rezoning of the subject site for the following reasons.
This is 4 Blake Street, The Gardens which is a planned rezone from community purposes to residential. It is a specific use purpose:
- This application is not supported by any study or strategic direction which identifies that the area is in surplus of ‘community purpose’ land or that this land will not be required to be retained for community purposes. Given that Darwin is expanding rapidly and infill is prevalent, this would result in greater pressure being placed on existing community uses and social infrastructure.
Something we need to keep in mind at the moment is pressure on Darwin and infill is occurring. Those spots zoned community purpose will be needed to provide services to the local community. Our open spaces will be needed. Obviously the Nightcliff island idea would fall into an open space. We need our open spaces zoned for community purposes. Residents and constituents are concerned when they see the government make decisions about land. They would then apply it to what is happening at Nightcliff island with the geotechnical drilling and the lot number.
There are concerns, and the member for Nightcliff is speaking on behalf of her constituency when raising them. When people are concerned and make the effort to hold public meetings, work to collect petitions which come to this Chamber, we have to take those concerns and respond to them seriously. That charge falls to government.
We saw a change of use in Palmerston which was quite upsetting to local residents. The Angel Road public housing site which was to be used for a public housing seniors village was replaced with urban residential. Local residents are upset when they plan and know something is happening then there is a change of use. They want community purpose land used for community purpose, not changed. These things are of concern.
How can we get through spot rezoning and community purpose land changes? There are a number of things we could consider. I have had some really good conversations with informed people in the electorate who have been through the planning process. Going through the planning process can be quite confronting, and they have some good ideas on how we look at community purpose land or spot rezoning. Are there things we can do to community purpose zoning to make it easier, better and more likely to be used for community purpose? Also how do we approach spot rezoning to take pressure and fatigue off local residents dealing with constant issues arising that differ from the town plan and what should be a well-considered plan for the area?
There have also been some good ideas about spot rezoning. One of those ideas is having an area plan. Unfortunately we have seen in Palmerston recently an area plan for high density buildings on small blocks has led to a Zuccoli subdivision receiving 100% objection from the local Palmerston council and residents. I will read from some notes on that. Should Zuccoli be subdivided to allow for 181 lots, of which 179 are medium density or multiple dwelling? Of these, 132 of the allotments, or 80% of the subdivision, will be between 300 m2 and 409 m2. That is a highly-concentrated high-density community not a salt and pepper development.
We are on the record as a party which supports salt and pepper developments. We want small blocks, medium-sized blocks and big blocks. We want a mix that provides housing choice and affordability for people and makes sure we do not have the potential for bad developments which can happen. An area plan can be a good way to deal with spot rezoning, precinct planning or master planning. But if it is an insufficient or inadequate area plan it can still lead to problems. You must have the right area, precinct or master plan with the right details.
There are a couple of different ways through it, but it must involve community consultation and the right detail so people can act in confidence and certainty. You must have certainty in the planning space. You have to be transparent and consistent so there can be certainty about how you can proceed. You do not want developers to be hesitant and you want local residents to always feel comfortable with what happens around them.
These are things that need to be worked on which people feel are currently lacking with the government. That is why the member for Nightcliff proposed a motion about this potential island in the harbour. There were genuine fears and concerns amongst her electorate based on things that have happened to date on that site, as well as the way the CLP has handled other planning issues around the Territory.
We heard recently from the members for Nelson and Goyder about Holtze and their local communities. The people of that locality have made their voices very clear, as we have seen in Bees Creek regarding the lack of consultation or consideration of a proper area plan. We acknowledge the work done to date on how areas should be used. Sometimes you have to move slowly in the planning space. Other people can move quickly when they build because it has been done right the first time and they know what they can do on the site.
With spot rezoning you can have a series of 12 separate spot rezoning decisions which might all make sense on their own merits, but taken as a bigger picture they lead to a worse outcome. You have to be very careful about spot rezoning and especially about taking away community purpose land. I am not aware of too many occasions when community purpose land was rezoned and replaced with another block rezoned as community purpose land. Once it is gone, it is gone. You have to be very careful about losing community purpose land. We know people need services which applies equally to open spaces. The area of our harbour is classified an open space.
We must be very careful about how we approach these issues. We have to be transparent and consistent. There is a very significant problem with community purpose land and spot rezoning which requires some thoughtful attention regarding how we proceed, what changes we can make to ensure those areas are better for local residents and developers and there is consistency. People know how it works. We can remove these fatigue elements and this pressure on community purpose land to try to deliver what other blocks do not deliver. We have to be very thoughtful about how we approach these things so we can get a good outcome for Territorians.
It is this lack of thought, consistency and transparency that leads to the serious angst for residents in the electorate about what is happening in Nightcliff harbour. I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing her motion so we can deal with these things.
As much as the member for Fong Lim made fun of it, we have acquired one important piece of information regarding the geotechnical surveys and the extreme amounts of mud from his response. We know the member for Fong Lim is capable of serious debate. Last time we had a planning debate on GBD about the third-party right of appeal, he made a very rational contribution to the member for Nelson’s motion. He can be serious and thoughtful in this space.
The member for Nightcliff is genuinely reflecting some deeply-held concerns in her electorate, as well as from people outside her electorate. People have come to me as well as to the member for Johnson and others. There have been a number of public meetings and gatherings to celebrate and defend that area.
Madam Speaker, we always need to take community concern seriously, so I am very happy to talk to this motion today. As part of talking to that motion, I raise the transparency and consistency issues we are seeing in other parts of Darwin, Palmerston, the rural area and beyond.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I am glad debate returned to some normality after the member for Fong Lim’s contribution, which I will touch on later.
The member for Nightcliff’s motion against the development of a man-made island in our harbour is that this Assembly recognises the community has called on the CLP government to listen and rule out the development of this island.
We need to repeat in this House that we on this side are 100% behind the member for Nightcliff and 100% against this development of a man-made island in our beautiful harbour off the coast of Nightcliff foreshore. As the member for Johnston, I have one of the neighbouring electorates to the electorate of Nightcliff. Many people walk along the foreshore and are very concerned about this.
I remember when it was first announced, it was in an Estimates Committee answer by the then Lands and Planning minister, the member for Brennan. I am sure he was talking about the exceptional development proposals that do not fit inside the box, such as Nightcliff island. He let the cat out of the bag and we carried on with that and obtained more information. It slowly got out to the public through other sources, and the concept of what would happen was discussed in the broader community.
More questions were asked by us of the then minister, the member for Brennan, about this proposal. I was the shadow Lands and Planning minister and looked at what this concept would be like. We were discussing it. Then we heard that a five-year Crown lease was given over the 98 ha section of the Nightcliff foreshore in Darwin Harbour. This was of grave concern. We asked what assessment would be done before any work was carried out. All of a sudden, there was a floating barge or something similar located on the proposed site. I remember the minister for all things, the member for Port Darwin, during the Christmas period, said they were only scraping a rock.
The main community concern was that there had not been an environmental impact assessment, or any measures taken for that proposal to go ahead. How can you go into a harbour and start drilling and scraping? We were very concerned how this could happen without any environmental impact assessment in that area, and we continue to be.
I attended a meeting on the foreshore where the development was proposed which was not called by the Northern Territory Labor Party; it was a community meeting called by concerned residents. There were many local residents from Nightcliff and my electorate as well as the broader community voicing their concerns about what exactly was being proposed in this development.
There was a small advertisement in the newspaper advising that some drilling or testing would be carried out in that section. That week there was a massive storm, a high tide and the water crashed over the foreshore walkway and ripped a bit of the bitumen walkway up. Many people were concerned and thought, ‘What if there was an island out there? What if there was some sort of development? What would happen, and what impact would that have on the storm surge zone in that area?’
I was fortunate to be invited and participated in a very early morning kayaking tour of the mangroves in that area over two or three hours with a few people from different organisations and a few residents. It was an opportunity to see its beauty and what would be lost if a development such as the Nightcliff island proposal went ahead.
I also have a personal connection, as many people do in that area, of growing up, walking through and listening to the stories of that area, what the sea, the land and the mangroves meant and how it all links into the story of my Aboriginal heritage and my other family. It was interesting and an experience I will never forget, and something I continue. This is why I will stand up for the development not going ahead.
The member for Nightcliff is a great advocate for the people who voted her in – we are voted in to listen and portray the will of the people. The member for Nightcliff called a community meeting in 2014 and there was a very big attendance. Attending was not only the member for Nightcliff but me, the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Fannie Bay, Wanguri and Nhulunbuy. We heard the many concerns about the proposal and what was happening. I remind the House of some of those concerns: the development process is not consistent with existing zoning; residential development is not compatible with existing biodiversity; some said the project is in a surge zone that could redirect water into residential areas; the project could have biodiversity implications for turtles and dugongs; there are no comprehensive social and environmental assessments of the proposal; others said we need a feasibility study to inform discussions on whether we want this kind of development; the proposal is not consistent with heritage recreational ecological values; and there is no traffic management plan or assessment strategy.
Following that, the residents and the concerned constituents of the broader Darwin community held a rally outside Parliament House. That was not something we organised, it was something the people organised because they wanted to show this government that it is out of touch and it needs to start listening to the community about this development.
Once we have developments such as this – the member of Fong Lim mentioned Tinker Bell, Dr Hook, unicorns, and sending unicorn meat to South Australia. We are used to the member for Port Darwin bringing these weird contributions into this House but we expect a lot more from the member for Fong Lim. He is normally a very good orator in his House and someone I have the utmost respect for. This is a serious issue. With all the fun and frivolity and some of the seriousness of his comments, he did not rule out – which is what this motion is about – this development of the man-made island. He informed the House that the developers have said all they have hit is mud and more mud. ‘We need to hit rock. We have not done that so we will not go ahead with the proposal.’
This motion from the member for Nightcliff is about this government ruling it out. That is what we wanted to hear from the current Minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Fong Lim. He did not state that this development would not go ahead. That is what we want to hear; this is what we want to take back to the community. The people have been fighting for this for over a year now. As the member for Nightcliff said, it has been over a year since we and the people raised this and we need answers.
It reignited over the new year period, with allotment No 7265 assigned over the sea, above where the development is proposed, and the rezoning of the land in front of it, which is in front of Ostermann Street in Coconut Grove. The member for Nightcliff has brought this back to the House. It is something we believe in and we want answers to.
As I said, the member for Fong Lim, the Lands and Planning minister, did not rule out this development going ahead. All he has told us this evening is that the developer has said it is not going ahead. We want this government – and I am happy for another minister to completely rule out this development for our pristine harbour.
We have many concerns about planning. As the member for Fannie Bay said, there has been spot rezoning carried out over the last couple of years, some that many ordinary constituents in the private sector are shaking their heads about asking, ‘How did that happen?’
We heard of quite a few situations where the planning authority denied it and the minister has overridden that and approved it. That is concerning as we have a process in place for a reason
The member for Fannie Bay has a few issues in Blake Street in his electorate. There have been a lot of spot rezoning in Johnston as well. We need to ensure we get this right. We are concerned with the Nightcliff island development as it is in our pristine harbour. Once it is gone, it is gone and there is no getting it back. For long-term Territory residents and new Territorians it is a magnificent area of the Northern Territory, not just Darwin. We need to look after it. We need to look after our environment and any developments that may happen.
As the member for Nightcliff said, we are not against development, we just want proper planning and process put in place. I know that has been said a number of times over the last couple of years. In this case we want the government, as do the people we represent who have asked us to raise this issue in our capacity as elected members, to totally rule out this development going ahead. It has been over a year and nothing has happened.
Madam Speaker, perhaps the member for Brennan, the former Lands and Planning minister, or somebody from that side of the House, can rule this out and support this motion from the member for Nightcliff. I hope somebody from the government will contribute to this motion. We are representing the people who want us to stand up for them. We want some answers and we need this government to totally rule out development of Nightcliff island.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, what a lost opportunity by the minister for Lands and Planning. I thought he would make some more announcements today because I had an e-mail from a person named Randy. He told me he has some great visionary ideas for Darwin and one is putting a marina in Knuckey Lagoon. He thinks that would be an ideal place, close to the highway and not far from the water main. You could bring water in and out, and the people who live there in nice quality houses could park their yachts there. The only problem is you probably need a channel through Berrimah Farm to get boats out to the sea, but I am sure with vision you could achieve that.
He also mentioned another one. There have always been problems with Rapid Creek flooding. His suggestion was a series of pipes from one end to the other, cover it over and it stops flooding. What a great opportunity for more affordable housing and choice of lifestyle! At one end you could have more industrial development around the airport, further down you could expand the clay shooting area and maybe bring another sport into that area. Then you could have houses all the way down to the sea. You have fixed the flooding and opened up more land!
We need people with more vision. That is what we are missing. That is what the minister for Planning is talking about. He believes in vision and does not care if the harbour is worth preserving as a harbour. He and the government are not willing to lead and say some areas are off limits. That does not make you anti-development; it sets a line in the mud to say that is as far as we go. That is what the big argument about the Elizabeth River dam was about. The government was not willing to say, ‘No, we will not wreck that estuary. We understand the importance of that estuary, not only from an ecological point of view, but from an aesthetic point of view.’
It is the same with the proposal to put an island in the middle of the harbour. The government could have said to the developer, ‘Sorry mate, we have a large amount of land, we do not need to put residential blocks in the middle of the harbour because we think our harbour is worth keeping not just for ourselves, but for future generations.’ It needed some leadership.
What if a developer says, ‘I have a vision for Rapid Creek; if we put some big concrete pipes in we can turn it into a residential development. We need more houses and at the same time we can overcome that flooding problem which has driven us mad for years’? It does not matter whether that river is important to the harbour or the ecology of the river is any good. No, ‘We should test it out and give that developer, Randy, a lease over Rapid Creek. We are not willing to say that Rapid Creek is not for development. We cannot bring ourselves to say that Knuckey Lagoon is not for development. We are not able to say that Darwin Harbour is not ready for unnecessary development.’
Of course you will have to develop. You cannot put a port inland, you have to put it on the sea. That is an essential development. We know that LNG has to be close to the harbour. However you do not need residential land sitting in the middle of the harbour. That is not an essential purpose. This is where the government has lost its vision. It is not visionary. It says, ‘Yes, if a bloke has a good idea, let him go with it’. It is not willing to lead and say, ‘Sorry mate, in this case that is not within our vision of preserving the harbour as a beautiful place for people to enjoy’. That is where this argument is lost.
The member for Fong Lim can talk about all sorts of funny things, but there was an opportunity for him to include some good comments about Darwin planning in general. He could have included how he sees the future of Darwin Harbour. What is his vision for Darwin Harbour? Does he think it should be developed more? If you put one island in, why can someone else not say they will build another island?
In the original 1990 Darwin plan there were six dams for the area, four in Darwin Harbour and two in Bynoe Harbour. The four estuaries that were meant to be dammed were Elizabeth River, two on West Arm and Woods Inlet. If anyone has flown over or been near Woods Inlet, you would have to say we would be crazy to dam that and kill all of those beautiful mangroves in the area.
We have a harbour that people are proud of; they enjoy it for fishing, sailing or simply using it to boat around or look at. It is not just about the technical planning issue we are dealing with. The government has a responsibility to protect the harbour. It has a responsibility to say to developers, ‘It will not happen, so do not waste your money. Do not drill holes in metres of mud and apply for a land lease. You will not develop that area; it is off limits as it is not essential.’ We have plenty of land to be developed and we do not need to ruin the environment many people love because it makes Darwin special.
Everybody can remember the issue with Ludmilla Creek. It is annoying that the criticism from the then opposition members, now in government, was rubbish. They said the developer should be allowed to go ahead. What they forgot was most of the land the developer was talking about was government land, zoned conservation. That is what it was there for. Why would a government say someone could look at chewing that up? The complaints were that you should have let the developer at least try. No, that is conversation land. The land at the back could possibly be developed, but they were not touching this public land. I remember the meetings about that.
That is what makes Darwin Harbour so terrific. I do not live in Nightcliff but I have had a lot to do with Darwin Harbour, especially in the Elizabeth River area when I was on the council. We fought so hard to make sure Elizabeth River was not dammed. The funny thing is the Planning Commission is still promoting it. One of the reasons the government does not want to build Weddell is it lives in the hope that one day the river will be dammed so it can fit into its version of Weddell. That is why it tends to push it away and make other excuses about it being too costly to develop. I do not trust the government when it comes to the Elizabeth River dam.
That is the problem with the government. It does not have a vision for Darwin Harbour. If you do not have a vision of course you will let developers say, ‘Oh do you mind if I put an island here, fill in this area here or dam that there?’ It should have a vision that makes Darwin Harbour a special place. We need to look after it with the only development in that harbour being what is essential. Non-essential uses like residential development in the harbour should be a no-no.
Madam Speaker, if the government goes ahead with this what else will it look at? Watch out, Knuckey Lagoon, you may yet have a marina!
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I love a planning debate. But often what I listen to is points of view about planning. The member for Nelson just said that a vision for Darwin Harbour might be to ensure there is no development, or perhaps another is to develop it. It is a point of view. Everyone has a different point of view when it comes to developing.
The crux of this debate is about something that does not exist. We are talking about something in parliament tonight – as we have done on quite a few occasions – that does not exist.
I have said from the very start of this that I trust the processes government has. I recall having debates like this before where I have said unless you allow something to go through a process you can never test to see whether it works. That was my criticism of the former Labor government when it said no to Arafura Harbour.
Arafura Harbour may never have stacked up environmentally or economically, but it was a vision someone had who was not allowed to go through the government’s processes. It may never have stood up. We have processes in place that are robust, and in some cases have been strengthened recently. In some cases where this government thought there was green or red tape involved, some of those areas have improved to the point where things are different today to what they were.
The member for Nightcliff has talked in this debate and even had public meetings about an island that does not exist. In fact, I was tempted to go to that meeting but I thought the meeting probably did not exist because the island does not exist.
This process from the word go was a claim by a developer who had a vision – not a vision shared by all – of building an island off the foreshore of Nightcliff. Some strange things occurred since the opposition raised this. All of a sudden people were wanting to playing cricket and families wanted a picnic in an area that is a mudflat. In all my years in Darwin I do not even think I have ever seen anyone walk there, but all of a sudden families were out there playing on an area of mud that for many reasons has environmental issues.
When I first saw this visionary idea of an island I thought it was something that would be very difficult to pull off. But I will not be one to say not to go through the processes because a business needs to have certainty when dealing with government. Those processes give business certainty. If you are going to cut them off at the knees at the whim of a couple of people who complain, what confidence do businesses have in doing business here in the first place – if you will not back your processes, your regulations, the laws you have in place in the Northern Territory? If they are tested to the point where a government thinks they are not working, that is when you change them. How do you know unless you allow something to go through the process?
How do the courts work, Attorney-General? How do our court systems work today if they were not allowed to test the laws?
Mr Elferink: You would have a kangaroo court.
Mr CHANDLER: Absolutely you would have a kangaroo court. It would not stack up; it would not work. The thing you see time and time again is solicitors – the legal fraternity – repeatedly testing laws. When there are faults found, that is when governments are usually asked to step in and amend legislation. It is the same as planning.
Maybe a view is that government was intrigued by someone who wanted to push into the harbour, because we certainly could not go rural into the member for Nelson’s area. Many developments could occur. The member for Nelson is right in one regard, there are many people in the rural area who want to protect that rural lifestyle. Equally, there are a number of people there too that would like to use their land for different purposes. From a government point of view, we should do what we can to facilitate that. We should back our processes and ensure the right decisions are made. That does not mean we do not interact.
I can recall being involved in public meetings with the member for Goyder. I particularly liked one public meeting because those people were not against development. They even came up with a compromise that I thought was very good …
Mr Wood: They were forced into a compromise.
Mr CHANDLER: No, not forced at all ...
Mr Wood: Yes, they were.
Mr CHANDLER: Not forced; the community put up a genuine compromise that I, as minister, felt the developer should seriously consider. To me, that is a good demonstration of processes that can work because the community was involved.
In my time as Minister for Lands and Planning was I happy with every single decision that I made? The answer is no. Do I think I had no control over some of the decisions I made because of circumstances at the time? Absolutely! I would have if we had inherited government when the price of land was not at the point it was and we were not trying to release land as quickly as possible and approve developments to get more roofs over families’ heads and more families into either private or public accommodation. If we had inherited a completely different set of circumstances than we did, perhaps some of the decisions I made would not have been the same.
I saw in Territorians a real struggle, particularly in the lead-up to the last election with the cost of living. That was one of the most serious issues then and still is today, although this government has done much in that space to help. There is more work to be done. At that stage, one of the biggest failings of the previous government was the lack of land release because it pushed the prices up.
What did we do? We changed housing and land release policies and sped up land release, improving the regulations involved to get land on the market quicker. The record will attest that we have achieved and are continuing to achieve that. Did we get everything absolutely right? No! One of the circumstances was the price of land here in the Northern Territory. One thing that was at the front of my mind was to get more land released quickly and drive the price of land to a level that more people could afford.
I have said before my family owned about 120 acres in Coburg 100 years ago. You can imagine owning 120 acres now. They were milking cows and so forth on that land. In Melbourne today, Coburg is like the centre of town. The city has grown and so too will Darwin over the years.
In my time in Lands and Planning I was not as concerned about electoral cycles when it came to planning – although I realised we had to deal with land release and cost-of-living prices – but ensuring we lay a foundation today where the principles will stand the test of time and we get the planning right for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now. I made many assumptions when this government came to power that plans had been done and road linkages and easements were there as successive governments had talked about areas like Glyde Point and so forth. I learnt that road corridors had not been designed to cater for a growing port facility in future …
Mr Wood: Yes, they had.
Mr CHANDLER: No, the corridors from East Arm all the way through to Glyde Point were not there, member for Nelson.
We are continuing to work on that to ensure the right corridors are in place in the future – I am not talking of the next two or three years, it could be 10, 20 or 30 years from now – so we have freeway access and light rail or heavy rail access from the current port to a new port. All these things are put in place well beyond my political life. Politicians in 15, 20 or 30 years from now will look back and thank us for making decisions today to ensure those corridors are ready for the future.
Where a second airport will be, at this stage, is anyone’s guess. We should at least make sure we have catered for that with good planning so someone does not come along in five years from now and build a primary school, a high school or village right next to where we might want to put a new airport …
Mr Wood: Yes, it is already planned for. It is on the plan!
Mr CHANDLER: I heard that, but I will not comment.
We all live in a dwelling today because a developer, at some stage, took a chance, even people who today live in the rural area. At some stage a developer would have had to submit an application through a government process to develop it …
Mr Wood: That is why some blocks go under water – 1960s.
Mr CHANDLER: Could do. That is why this government, not the previous government, member for Nelson, introduced into the regulations land capability studies. The process today ensures we will not see some of the mistakes of the past …
Mr Wood: There were rules before but they were not carried out.
Mr CHANDLER: The rules must have been bent by a former government if that is what happened.
Mr Wood: I did not say that.
Mr CHANDLER: No, that is what you are insinuating.
When it comes to planning and vision – the member for Nelson talked with real passion about …
Mr Wood: Weddell?
Mr CHANDLER: Weddell, but also talks with passion about why we want to push into the harbour and protect the harbour. We want to ensure our environment is protected, but that is one person’s vision. Another person’s vision might be to develop it. As the member for Johnston said earlier about having the opportunity to kayak – up Rapid Creek was it?
Mr Vowles: No, the mangroves and Nightcliff foreshore.
Mr CHANDLER: I also enjoyed the company of a number of people from the Environment Centre. We took a boat ride through the mangroves at high tide. I particularly remember sitting at the Nightcliff outfall for a little while to smell and take in the ambiance of the area. The object of the evening on that boat was to see the beauty of that area. I was amongst doctors, scientists and environmentalists on a boat. I had the opportunity to speak to those people. Dr Stuart Blanch was the coordinator at that time. They were selling me the virtues of the area. It was their view of the area. I looked behind first before I spoke to them because I expected there might be a plank they wanted me to walk off. I said, ‘I could be here tomorrow night at the same time in the same boat with a group of developers with a completely different view. Is it right or is it wrong? It is a point of view; development will always be a point of view whether you accept it or not.’
I go back to the crux of this argument. I have said it from the word go we are talking about something that does not exist, which may never exist. The Gwelo group had a vision for Arafura Harbour. It was visionary infrastructure that could have changed the look of Darwin, like Cullen Bay did so many years ago.
Not everyone likes that kind of development. Not everyone in this country likes Gold Coast-style developments, but they sell well and many people live there because they like that lifestyle. Many people live in Cullen Bay. Many people live in apartments and on rural blocks, and God bless them.
People need to have a choice. Unless we allow a diversity of developments across the Northern Territory we are denying people choice. If you choose five, 10, 20, 40 or 80 acres or more in the rural area, that is fantastic. If you want to live in an apartment in lovely Nightcliff or on the Esplanade in the CBD, that is fantastic. All of those choices came about because a developer has taken great risk to go through the processes a government of the day has in place. Allow processes; allow developers to have the confidence in their government so they can allow someone to go through a natural process ...
Mr Wood: Parameters first.
Mr CHANDLER: Absolutely, and those parameters are set. I know a bit about this island, as I was the former minister. It was a concept.
A great deal was required legally to put a lease in place and allow the developer to do initial studies on the geography of the area in the first place. There were some processes government went through to give this developer the right to go through the process and see if it stacked up.
From the outset, whilst I can say I thought it was a visionary idea, I did not know if it would stack up because it had many hurdles to overcome. It had to be environmentally sustainable. Part of any developer’s mandate has to be a community licence; that is, bring the community with them. This is not a government development. It would be different if it was because it would be our job to sell this to the community. But it is not, this was a private development. Part of the process has to be that the developers must get a social licence. They have to be involved in bringing the community along with them.
We have robust processes in place to ensure they get ample opportunity to do that. Public forums are held; there are feedback sessions and consultation for people to contribute their views on particular developments.
Businesses need to have confidence that those rules are in place and they will be adhered to. If you step in and do what the member for Nightcliff says, you do exactly what the former Henderson government did when they stepped on the toes of a visionary developer who has done a great deal for the Darwin area and crushed any chance of them going through the normal process. I do not know if Arafura Harbour would have stacked up. I do not know if Nightcliff island, if it went any further, would stack up because, as I said, there are many hurdles such as the environment and the cost. The developer’s number one issue in all of this would be that something has to be commercially sustainable. Developers do not want to lose money. I do not want to break it to the world but it is true: they do not do things to go backwards. One of their critical steps is to ensure something can be commercially viable.
To do something like that at Nightcliff would have taken some extraordinary engineering, I suspect. Getting the information by being allowed to do that initial drilling may indicate to a developer that this will not stack up, or it may be feasible regarding engineering but at a huge cost. I do not know but I guarantee you that allowing that developer to do that testing will give them far more information and they will know whether something will work or not.
Madam Speaker, it comes down to government needing to give businesses certainty by allowing them to go through processes that exist today and test our regulations and processes. It gives them and the community certainty and that is what we need, not cutting someone off at the knees and talking about something that does not even exist. Allow it to go through the process and we may provide options for Territorians.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support this important motion the member for Nightcliff has proposed to the Chamber that this Assembly recognises the community is calling on the CLP government to listen and rule out the development of a man-made island in our harbour.
First, I do not think I can continue with my contribution to this debate without commenting on what I heard from the member for Fong Lim. I was upstairs giving my son a bath and preparing him for bed. The last person I thought he would be hearing stories about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell from was the member from Fong Lim. I was trying to listen carefully to the debate, because I knew I would be contributing to it.
What I heard in the member for Fong Lim’s story of Peter Pan and Tinker Bell was a subliminal message with regard to the Chief Minister driving a nuclear train. We know the CLP government has been referred to as the biggest train wreck of a government anybody has ever seen in the history of the Territory. Driving a ‘nuclear’ train leaves me with the impression that it is possibly the biggest, most dangerous, devastating train wreck somebody could be involved in.
The other thing he made very clear in his contribution was that he does not take this issue very seriously at all. As the newly-appointed Minister for Lands and Planning in the latest reshuffle in the Giles government, he spoke about what is a very important topic which is creating a great deal of anxiety in the community. There is a great deal of concern about the prospect of Nightcliff island being built. Instead of constructively contributing to debate, he spoke about Peter Pan, Tinker Bell, nuclear trains being driven by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and made a mockery of it. That was a shame. He also failed to rule out the development of a man-made island in our harbour.
I thank the member for Nightcliff for proposing this debate because she is extremely passionate about her community and has some constituents who are very concerned about the potential of an artificial island being built in our harbour. It is not just the residents of the Nightcliff electorate who are concerned; it is residents across Darwin and in Palmerston.
People who call this place home understand the face of Darwin will change over time and there will be new developments; it will happen as it is a fact of life. We need to find ways in which to meet the demands that come with a growing population. People understand there is a need for development and it has to be right. However, this is not the type of development people want to see. This is not the direction people want to see government taking. That has been communicated loudly and clearly by the community. As the shadow minister for Environment, I clearly have some big concerns about the environmental impacts of building a man-made island off the Nightcliff foreshore which I will also be discussing in this debate.
My biggest concern in this debate is about the CLP government we are dealing with and its track record when it comes to accountability, transparency and listening to the views of Territorians, which over the last two-and-a-half years has been appalling. It is little wonder why, as an opposition, we need to keep bringing issues like this into the parliament and ask questions about what is happening. We want to know tonight what is happening with Nightcliff island so we can keep a track of what this government is doing. So far we have received very little clarity from the government tonight in this debate.
It has been alarming to see how this government has worked regarding Nightcliff island and the processes it has taken that have not been in clear sight of the public. The government has not been very open and accountable in the processes it has followed at all. That has added to the anxiety of many people deeply worried about the prospect of an artificial island being constructed in our pristine harbour.
One only has to look at the history of how this debate over Nightcliff island has come about in this parliament to understand why the anxiety levels are up. No one trusts this government on this topic due to its actions. Initially, it was the former minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Brennan, who brought the plans into the public arena at an Estimates Committee hearing when he mentioned the prospect of an artificial island being built in the harbour.
After the CLP government scrapped the extensive work done on Labor’s Greater Darwin Plan and went ahead with its Draft Darwin Regional Land Use Plan, we saw some of its vision and where it thought new housing development should go in the Top End. What was not included in its vision for future development in Darwin was a man-made island in the harbour.
It also came to light that the government had given a Crown lease for the area in the harbour to allow for testing and work to be done on this site to see if it could accommodate this type of man-made or artificial island, which had previously been public open space in the NT Planning Scheme. The government communicated at the time that they felt a simple public notice in the local paper was an adequate form of public consultation about test drilling for a potential Nightcliff island. This is the typical arrogance of the CLP government when it comes to its view of being open and accountable with Territorians.
In January, we also saw a lot number allocated to the area which could potentially become Nightcliff island. Yet the government has not been up front about that process, which again leaves people feeling particularly distrustful of the government’s motives.
I also question whether the government engaged in discussion or debate with Territorians prior to granting the initial Crown lease to ask some basic questions. Do you want to see residential development built on a man-made island in your pristine harbour? Do you think we should be building artificial islands to house people off the coast of Darwin?
This government does not listen to the views of Territorians. Prior to heading down this path of exploration work to build a man-made island, the government should have at least engaged in some discussion with Territorians to see if they want this type of development in their harbour. Given it had embarked on its own vision for future residential development in Darwin, if it expected people to accept testing and feasibility studies to develop a man-made island in the harbour to house about 3000 people, one would have thought that would have been part of its grand planning vision document regarding land – or sea in this case – use.
Again, there is no transparency in this process and the government has not been open and accountable with Territorians. Today we are calling on the CLP government to finally rule out development of a man-made island in our harbour. Although we have called on them to rule it out tonight they have not done so, so it leaves you wondering about the future.
The government has failed to listen to Territorians’ strong community sentiment and views in its two-and-a-half years of government. We have seen some huge failures by this government with its processes when Territorians have made their views loud and clear about things they want and do not want to see. We saw a disgraceful process with TIO, the Arafura Games, water licence allocations, Power and Water price hikes, education cuts, and planning and development issues in the rural areas. We know this government has a track record of arrogantly throwing out any genuine community concerns that impact on what they are doing.
We know this government has failed to listen to Territorians. There are some big environmental concerns about biodiversity, mangroves and the potential impact to Ludmilla Creek which have been disregarded so far regarding Nightcliff island.
There are questions we want answers to from the government, as well as environmental concerns. People do not trust this government about whether it has looked at the social impacts of building an artificial island off the Nightcliff foreshore. How would they manage traffic flow in the area? How would schools cater for it? People want to know the government is at least considering these questions because we heard the former Lands and Planning minister say these ideas should be tested and go through processes.
When government went through this process with Nightcliff island, it tells me it is willing to go down this path and see this type of development happen, and it is something it is trying to accommodate as best it can. That concerns me.
I will leave it at that. It is a shame. The government had an opportunity tonight to say there would be no man-made island in our pristine Darwin Harbour and that Nightcliff island would not go ahead. Instead we have seen its members totally disregard this debate, make a mockery of it, and treat the people of the Top End who are concerned about the prospect of a man-made artificial island being built in our pristine harbour with disrespect. That is truly a shame.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion from the member for Nightcliff and hope we see the government taking the issue a bit more seriously in the future.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, this is a parliament not a preschool where we tell fantasy stories. You would not have guessed that listening to the member for Fong Lim tonight. This is the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. We are elected to represent our communities and people place their faith in us. What we heard tonight was appalling. No wonder people lose faith in government and politicians.
Tonight the minister had an opportunity but he failed Territorians and my community of Nightcliff. He answered no questions and pretended to be humorous. However the humour of the minister shows he does not respect the community or Territorians. This is a serious issue which is raised regularly in my community, whether it is at the markets or on the doors. His arrogance and dismissive mocking of residents’ concerns shows how arrogant the government is and that it is not fit to govern.
A leopard cannot change it spots, and the member for Fong Lim made that perfectly clear tonight. It is not a fantasy that we have a lease in place. It is not a fantasy that a lot number exists. This is a real issue for the community I was elected to represent. I am in here tonight speaking on their behalf.
Tonight the minister had an opportunity. The former minister said there was some process, but he still did not answer any questions and tell us about the process.
The current minister, the member for Fong Lim, clearly knows more than he is pretending. From his comment publicly stating that there is only mud there, he has clearly been advised of some results. He should have taken the opportunity to tell Territorians. He repeated that they dug and found mud, then dug more and found more mud. He obviously knows something, but has chosen not to share that with the community. He made it clear with his comments tonight that he does not understand the integrity of our city. We do not want an island in our harbour.
He thought he was being humorous but he was showing disrespect. His comments highlight that he is out of touch. This is an issue that genuinely concerns our community. I know you have issues in your community that genuinely concern you. The people of Nightcliff and Coconut Grove are concerned about an island being built in the heart of their community, in the harbour. People across Darwin are concerned about it, just as the rural area residents and those across the greater Darwin area have concerns about the current planning decisions being made. There is much environmental evidence why this island should not go ahead, including the social impact. There are so many concerns. What we heard tonight from the Lands and Planning minister is an embarrassment to our parliament.
The Chief Minister said not long ago that he was 110% focused on Territorians. That clearly was not evident tonight from his minister. The Chief Minister said he put the community at the heart of his decisions, or words to that effect. Then one of his ministers laughed and made jokes. If I wanted to hear fairy tales I would have gone to Disneyland, not parliament.
What we get from this CLP government is contempt about the Nightcliff island issues and disrespect for our community. We have seen it with the Bees Creek issue. It is contempt; it is not what people want. They want members of parliament and ministers to listen to them, be up front and share the facts.
A minister made a joke about a serious issue. He clearly knew more that he let on when he indicated the digging in the mud. He should have taken this motion seriously and informed the community. If these developments are mocked and disparaged why encourage developers to waste their precious funds on what you mock as a fantasy? This goes beyond laughing at the community and being disrespectful to them, it is also disrespectful to the developers. They had an idea, but we saw that mocked tonight. The Planning minister should be ashamed of his behaviour. If it was such a fantasy we heard through the mockery, why was it given the significant development status?
Ministers are laughing at us and pretending we are making it all up when there is a lease in place, a lot number has been allocated and it has been given significant development status. Then, in the minister’s rant, it became clear he knows something, but he could not be up front with Territorians and share that. It is appalling.
After that performance, it is highly concerning that this is the Treasurer preparing our budget – a minister of the Crown giving that performance. Are we meant to have faith and confidence in his planning and Treasury decisions? Instead, we heard about Tinker Bell.
I thank my colleagues on this side, and the member for Nelson. He understands, as do my colleagues, how important this issue is. Territorians – Top Enders – do not want a man-made island in their harbour. They understand that our harbour is special; it is significant and we only get one chance. I have spoken about the environmental impacts and not following what other states and cities have done. The least the minister could do was show a bit of respect. The last time we debated this issue I heard disrespect in comments that showed how out of touch the ministers and the CLP government are with the community on this issue. Tonight took it to a new level.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of my community, I commend the motion to the House.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 11
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Ms McCarthy Mr Elferink
Ms Manison Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Moss Mr Giles
Mr Vowles Mr Higgins
Ms Walker Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Price
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
MOTION
Polling Day Considerations
Polling Day Considerations
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, just like polling day, there is so much noise I cannot hear myself.
I move that the NT government considers that on polling day in local government and Territory elections:
not to permit a person to canvass for votes, solicit a vote or induce or attempt to induce an elector not to vote for a particular candidate or candidates within 100 m of a polling place
and/or not permit the distribution of any advertisement, how-to-vote card, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice containing any electoral matter on polling day. This would also include advertising or comment in a newspaper on that day.
Before the government and the opposition become overexcited about this motion I emphasise the key word is ‘consider’. I have introduced this motion to enable members an opportunity to discuss whether we should change the way the canvassing of votes and political advertising is permitted on polling day.
The motion is taken from the Tasmanian Electoral Act 2004 sections 177 and 198. I read from those acts. In the Tasmanian Electoral Act 2004, section 177 says:
- Offences within 100 metres of polling place
A person must not, within 100 metres of, or within, a polling place which is open for polling -
(a) canvass for votes; or
Section 198 says:
- Campaigning on polling day
(1) A person must not, on the polling day fixed for an election, or on a day to which the polling for an election has been adjourned -
- (a) distribute any advertisement, ‘how to vote’ card, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice containing any electoral matter; or
- (b) publish or cause to be published in a newspaper -
- (i) an advertisement for or on behalf of, or relating in any way to, a candidate or party; or
- (ii) a matter or comment relating to a candidate or a question arising from, or an issue of, the election campaign.
In the ACT Electoral Act 1992, section 303 says:
- Canvassing within 100 metres of polling places
(1) A person shall not, during polling hours within the defined polling area in relation to a polling place -
- (a) do anything for the purpose of influencing the vote of an elector as the elector is approaching, or whilst the elector is at, the polling place; or
(b) do anything for the purpose of inducing an elector not to vote as the elector is approaching, or while the elector is at, the polling place; or
(c) exhibit a notice containing electoral matter that is able to be clearly seen by electors approaching, or at, the polling place, other than a notice authorised by the commissioner for display there.
Those are the two areas in Australia that have restrictions greater than most states.
I do not know the New Zealand legislation, but my understanding from their website is under the Electoral Act 1993 campaigning on election day is a criminal offence. They also have restrictions on what can happen on polling day.
The first part of this motion is to keep the canvassing of votes 90 m further away from the polling booth than is presently permitted in the Northern Territory. Then there is a pretty good chance people can vote at a polling booth without being harassed or having to walk through the mountains of posters and billboards that tend to intimidate members of the public who simply want to vote.
There are political animals who think this is all part of the rough and tumble in the tradition of politics, but what do the voters think? They have to run the gauntlet of party hacks smiling continuously and pushing how-to-vote cards at people in the hope of winning one more vote at the death. Are we so dumb that we believe that with all the publicity leading up to an election, the public have not made up their minds? Surely by polling day any candidate worth their salt would have canvassed the electorates so voters knew who they were and whether they would vote for them or not? Do you really believe voters need to be reminded on polling day?
Mr Tollner: Do you really believe in Nightcliff island?
Mr WOOD: Would you vote for the member for Fong Lim who believes in Peter Pan?
Why do we not let the voters have a leisurely stroll to the polling booth, vote and then afterwards go shopping or watch the footy? Is this madness designed for the parties or the people? I say it is more for the parties. Even the parties have had their doubts.
As I said before, Tasmania and the ACT already have restrictions on canvassing. The ACT was at one stage considering both a 250 m and a 500 m non-canvassing zone, which I think was totally impractical. The Australian Electoral Commission compiled a report – would you believe? It says here it was providing comments on a proposal to extend the present 100 m ban on canvassing to a 500 m ban. Luckily they decided not to do that because 500 m probably put people in the local shopping centre and would probably be a little hard to manage. Obviously that was knocked on the head. There was a debate in the ACT parliament where they were looking at the 250 m minimum zone. As they said, it could end up in the local school or in the car park so it became fairly impractical, but 100 m was agreed on.
The previous Queensland government also considered introducing some changes. After the Redcliffe by-election especially, Campbell Newman indicated he was looking at measures that would counteract some of the issues raised during that election. This is from the Brisbane Times of 24 April 2014:
- Running the gauntlet of political volunteers on election day could become a thing of the past, if the government moves forward with a proposal to ban canvassing at polling booths.
State Electoral Commissioner, Walter van der Merwe’s report into behaviour during last month’s Redcliffe by-election is expected to be tabled in Parliament on Thursday.
But Premier Campbell Newman told the Courier Mail his cabinet had given ‘in-principle’ support to a range of measures proposed to counter issues raised in the report.
‘My overall concern about elections in Queensland is very much driven by the feedback I get from ordinary men and women who are always saying to me, ‘Look, we hate the barrage at polling booths, we feel intimidated’,’ Mr Newman told the paper.
‘The government would like to put forward a proposal to really take a very positive step to have election days as a day where voters can go about their democratic responsibilities in an atmosphere of quiet contemplation, that we can calm it right down, we don’t have the circus, the hoopla or indeed the aggro at polling booths, or the waste of resources.’
The article went on to say:
- Mr Bleijie …
who was the Attorney-General:
- … told parliament Mr van der Merwe had three major areas of concern – ‘the overt intimidating and obstructing behaviour towards the public and election staff, the excessive display of political statements and the manner and time in which those statements were erected and displayed and the conduct and numbers of scrutineers at the Saturday night count.’
- Michelle Irving posted on our page that the amount of signage was ‘visual pollution’, while Jill Larsen said it was ‘absurd overkill’.
Jodi McFarlane said an ‘incredible amount’ of paper had been wasted, while Trish Khoo said she had returned to sender all the political mail she received.
- Mr Watson and Mr Sutton …
- … don’t disagree with our Facebook followers, believing voters should not be bombarded with how-to-vote cards and political signage as they walk into polling places.
Both men believe political material on election day should be restricted, with Mr Sutton saying at least 20 people were handing out material at the Mt Lockyer Primary polling station alone on Saturday.
‘We were having people coming up bloody grumpy, and understandably so,’ Mr Sutton said.
‘Don’t hassle people, just let them go and make their decision without the hassle.’
Mr Watson said political parties could save money and voters could enjoy election day without being saturated with advertising.
I’d be quite happy if people went to the polling booth without having to run the gauntlets ...
They are, I think, people from the National Party and Labor Party in Western Australia.
I have a picture of people lining up at an early voting centre in the United States. I do not see one iota of a poster where they lined up. The main problem in America is you have to line up for about two-and-a-half hours. In some places their voting method is very slow.
In the Northern Territory we have legislation which says you cannot canvass for votes within 10 m of a polling booth. I raise that because there has been some discussion in some quarters – there was a document published by George Williams, a barrister and senior lecturer at Australian National University, under a group called Law and Bills Digest Group. He published a research paper in 1996-97 looking at – I will read part of the summary:
- In 1992 in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth the High Court struck down the Political Broadcast and the Political Disclosures Act 1991 (Cth), which restricted political advertising on the electronic media during Federal, State, Territory and local elections. In doing so, it recognised that the Australian Constitution contains an implied freedom to discuss political matters. This freedom was primarily derived from sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution, which respectively provide that the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives ‘shall be … directly chosen by the people’. As federal laws passed under section 51 of the Constitution are passed ‘subject to this Constitution’, such laws are invalid if they infringe the implied freedom.
This paper discussed whether any restrictions on where you can say something or what you can hand out could be against the Constitution. It was tested and then – from my brief reading – it was found to be correct in certain cases. Then it was overturned by another judgment.
The point I am making is we already restrict where people can give out electoral material. In some states it is 3 m from the polling booth; in other states it is 6 m, 10 m or 100 m.
I will read from another document I have, which is an inquiry into the Redcliffe by-election. Mr Walter van der Merwe, the Electoral Commissioner published this report. I will just read a section under ‘Canvassers’ in regard to laws in other states, territories and countries. He said with regard to distance and what you can do outside a polling booth:
- Similar restrictions can be found in overseas jurisdictions. In Canada, where laws that regulate polling booths are set on a province level, Ontario prohibits any attempt to influence a voter ‘in the immediate vicinity’ of the voting place. And the province of Saskatchewan sets the same 100 metre boundary as Tasmania and the ACT. In the USA individual states have adopted laws that prohibit canvassing and the display of electoral material at distances ranging from between 50 and 600 feet (15 and 183 metres) of polling booths. Additionally some municipalities also have laws relating to canvassing, for example in the City of South Lake Texas, canvassers must not impede pedestrian flow or act in an aggressive or intimidating manner which can include blocking a person’s path, following alongside or behind a person, shouting and using loudspeakers.
- In the United Kingdom the offence of undue influence may apply to a person impeding or preventing entry to a polling station. The Electoral Commission of the United Kingdom state in their handbook for polling station staff that, ‘In many areas, it is now common practice to provide mobile policing support to polling stations’.
So there are restrictions on where freedom of speech applies and it varies according from country to country and state to state.
I feel, from personal experience, it is time we allow the voters the courtesy of being able to vote without any intimidation and having to go through all that, because to some extent it is treating them as if they were dumb. People who want to vote will know who to vote for. They will see it in newspapers and on television; they will get it on social media and in the letter box; they will be bombarded with it. Surely we can leave the people of the Northern Territory a day of peace and quiet where they can vote for who they want.
That leads me to the issue of what can happen on Saturday with regard to political material. But on the issue of whether you should be able to canvass for votes on that date, I say, yes, but you will be 100 m away so people who do not want anything to do with you can drive into the car park and avoid you altogether; they have that choice. Then they can walk to the polling booth in peace.
I have seen pictures of the Wanguri by-election. Every time they have a by-election, the number of posters increases by three or four times. I remember the pictures on the front page of the NT News. The poster people must love elections and by-elections because they must make a fortune. Do you really need all that? I have seen fences covered in those plastic CLP and Labor Party strips. They go for about 50 m ...
Mr Giles: Nightcliff island would be a good spot, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: That is right, very nice. You would be able to put the polling booth out there; it would be 100 m clear of anything.
We need to give people not only the option but the right to vote on that Saturday or whatever day without all that paraphernalia. Trust the people, they are not silly. They do not need a whole heap of posters and things thrust in their hand to say, ‘I know you would have voted for that person yesterday but now you have seen me here you will change your mind’. There have been some surveys done that show all that stuff does not make any difference. By the time most people get to the polling booth they have made up their mind. From a point of view of whether you are wasting your time and money, that is a good point.
The second part of the motion is a bit more controversial. I have taken this straight from Tasmania and I put the heading of ‘and/or’ because it is worthy of debate. I have seen a headline in a newspaper on a Saturday morning which is blatantly political which could be used to influence people such as ‘Fred Nerk bashes wife’. ‘Oh, I will not vote for him’. It might not be true but it is ‘allegations’ of bashing.
The idea is to leave that day alone. There have been plenty of opportunities for the media to write their editorials and advertise up to that day. There already are restrictions in electronic media, but in the print media that Saturday or that day of voting should be free of it.
It raises an important issue about how-to-vote cards. What Mr Campbell Newman said after the Redcliffe by-election was interesting. He said on Moreton Bay’s radio station 101.5 FM, which was quoted in a newspaper article:
- Handing out how-to-vote cards and canvassing at polling booths would be banned under moves being considered by the Newman Government in the aftermath of the rowdy Redcliffe by-election.
Premier Campbell Newman said Cabinet had given its in-principle support to a proposal that could limit signage at booths and relegate how-to-vote cards to a stand inside, manned by nominated and registered party volunteers.
He was quoted in another paper the same as I just read so I will not repeat it. He wanted some limitations on how-to-vote cards. I am of the same mind. I am not saying you should get rid of how-to-vote cards, but perhaps leave them on a rack, They should be the same size and clearly state whose they are.
I was reading some of the comments made on these webpage news items. As one person said, ‘I do not want to be told who to put my second and third vote for. Do you not think I have enough intelligence to work that out? Why do I have to do what someone thinks, who gives me a card which says vote that way?’ To some extent it is treating people as if they do not have enough brains to know who to vote for. That is one of the issues that how-to-vote cards raise in our society.
Parties love them. I hand out how-to-vote cards. I have a double-sided one. The CLP gets my preference on one side and the ALP gets it on the other side. I do it because that is the way we carry out elections these days. Many people do not take them. If you had a rack similar to Campbell Newman’s idea, it could be looked after by the person in charge of the booth on that day. It could be his job to make sure they are in their correct position so you do not have candidates touching them.
The reason I raised this today is because it is time. The Chief Minister can tell me if I am wrong, but some time ago we discussed similar issues on whether we needed to change the way we conduct our elections. Early after the election, the Opposition Leader claimed the member for Daly said certain things at a polling booth. I have also been out bush and know mobile polling booths are rugged places.
I would like to see Aboriginal people able to walk up to a polling booth with nobody there, thank you. Give those people credit for enough intelligence to work out who they would vote for, free of that intimidation, which for some of those people can be much harsher than it is in the big city where, to some extent, we are used to it. It would remove what is sometimes seen as perceived bias in those communities.
Voting in remote communities has been controversial at times regarding influence from different sides, groups and people. We could lessen that pressure on people. If they need help, do it through the electoral process that is set up in the Electoral Act. Give assistance that way, but do not have people standing around the door handing out how-to-vote cards, saying, ‘Look at me, look at me’.
Give those people the opportunity anyone else has of walking up to a polling booth without feeling any fear. Many people look at a polling booth and say, ‘Gee, I have to walk through that?’ It might be all right for us because we are pollies and are used to it, but many people do not like it; the quicker they can get out of there, the better. I would rather they went and voted and had a nice time buying a few sausage sandwiches from the local fire brigade, spoke amongst themselves and went home, went shopping or went to the footie. They have done their duty as required.
I do not think it is necessary, but it is a tradition that has come from political parties competing against one another. They can compete on all the other days; they can just leave that Saturday alone.
We now have the complication of moving more to pre-poll voting. I raised this in the debate on local government. If we are moving to it you do not need to have an excuse to vote early. Should some of the same laws apply? That may be something that is looked at because early voting is not done in a standard polling booth, it is sometimes done in a shopping centre. It might be much harder to apply those rules. If it was held in a shopping centre like Palmerston or at Highway House where early voting has been held, the rules might be that you cannot have anybody in the building or within 100 m of the building handing out how-to-vote cards and there are no placards at all.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I leave it there because it is something we should debate. I am not asking anyone to support this, I am just saying it is something the government should consider. It may be that the government needs to have a small, independent committee which contains members of the community to look at it and see whether the idea is worth following. As we know, two other governments – Tasmania and the ACT – have it and there are similar restrictions in other parts of the world. I raised it for discussion and am interested to hear what other people have to say.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel somewhat sorry for the member for Nelson. This is quite an interesting motion and something that should have been given more time to debate, in contrast to the previous motion, which was complete and utter nonsense about imaginary islands. We are now talking about something that is real and affects people. Member for Nelson, it would have been good to spend an hour or two on this topic rather than talking about imaginary islands.
I will not talk for long as I appreciate other people want to speak. In relation to how-to-vote cards, I once had the same opinion as you: how silly are people if they need to be given how-to-vote cards? Then I became involved in the political game and stood as an independent in Nelson.
I remember on voting day the Labor Party decided to preference against me because I refused to direct my preferences to them. I won the majority primary vote and thought I was over the line, but I watched Labor voters come in like sheep and follow the how-to-vote card to the ‘T’, and I lost on preferences. You will recall Chris Lugg was probably the only CLP member to be elected on the back of Labor Party preferences. It surprises me how much how-to-vote cards matter and that people follow them. If I was a Labor voter I would find it very difficult to preference the CLP ahead of an Independent, but that is what they did.
I am also aware of some polling that was done at a federal election a few years ago. I cannot remember who did the exit polling. That polling demonstrated that more than 25% of voters had no clue who they would vote for when they got out of the car at the polling booth. They virtually walk in and make up their minds in the last five or 10 minutes. It is not difficult to understand why political parties and contestants spend so much time and effort. There are literally wars that break out at polling booths every time a general election is called because people and experience tells us the reality is he who controls the space and the message at the polling booth will often win the votes at that polling booth. It is sad but true.
I share your frustration, member for Nelson, with the way our system works. It is a fantastic motion you have brought to this parliament. At some stage it would be good to have a much deeper debate about electoral reform and how we change things.
I read an interesting article in the The Weekend Australian which said a majority of Australians are now receiving some form of welfare, and the big fear is when people vote they will vote for benefits for themselves. There are jurisdictions around the world that limit voting to people who pay tax. The view is if you are not contributing to government or the community, why should you have a say in who is running government or who is working on the community? I imagine that concept might be a bit difficult for a few people to come to grips with in Australia, where we live in the welfare state we do. However these are real issues.
If we are ever to balance a budget again – I notice Tony Abbott is now talking about 40 years of deficit because no government has the will to take it up with the welfare lobby because welfare is clearly draining Australia and our resources. Without a doubt, if things continue to go the way they are we will end up like Greece.
Mr Deputy Speaker, somewhere along the line we have to admit that maybe our voting system in our democracy is somewhat broken. Perhaps now, member for Nelson, is a good time to have this discussion. I applaud you for proposing the motion. I am keen to hear what other people have to say.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for proposing this debate. I thank the member for Fong Lim for his contribution. We will support this motion. We believe it is an opportunity to consider these issues, but also go further in the considerations.
You are right in your commentary in that I said we would look at the Electoral Act on the back of former Electoral Commissioner, Bill Shepheard’s, presentation to estimates last year. I stand to be corrected, but I think that is what occurred.
We had a look at a few different things in the Electoral Act internally. Part of that review formed the basis of some of the changes to the Local Government Act which were made the other day. We looked at things such as the pre-polling, as you mentioned, and how some of those things took place. There was a range of other measures we looked at. However whenever you talk about voting, people often see it as cynical. We did not want to get into an argy-bargy debate in parliament about what should and should not be looked at.
The idea of 100 m is on the surface a good idea, but whether that is the right amount of distance and those types of things – the wording of the motion is very flexible. I am lobbied on a number of occasions about a range of things to do with voting.
The member for Fong Lim just spoke about only people paying tax being allowed to vote. That is one issue people raise with me. Other people talk about optional preferential voting and different types of voting systems. Online voting and a range of different things are often discussed, so this is an opportunity for such things to be considered.
I do not propose that we set up a parliamentary committee or anything like that. I am very happy to entertain your thoughts privately. You may want to consider other aspects of desired changes to the Electoral Act and the electoral system. I can include that in some of the investigations we undertake and chat more in parliament on GBD. It is not something we are looking to bring in from a political point of view, but see how we can reform the electoral system. If you are keen to follow that process, we are more than happy to do it. I agree that nobody wants to run the gauntlet on election day, it does not matter if you are a politician or you are voting. I do not think it is right; it is intimidating to voters. I want to see that changed along with a range of other areas.
My personal preference is optional preferential voting. It is not a party position, but I believe optional preferential voting is good. In regard to voting and democracy in the Electoral Act and the electoral process, there is a range of different models and methods around Australia and the world. Every member of this parliament probably has different opinions on these things, so reaching a consensus will be a challenge. I am happy to entertain your thoughts. Perhaps we can bring it back for discussion about some of those potential changes in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have looked at this, but have not progressed forward with a reform process for fear of not wanting to get in the middle of a political debate when we are trying to make sensible changes to support voters.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing a very interesting motion to General Business Day in parliament.
I followed the member for Nelson very closely in this place. I like people I can learn from, and I have learnt many lessons from the member for Nelson. Some of those lessons have been articulated throughout this Assembly.
Although the member for Nelson is a very caring, honest and pragmatic person, this motion could relate to the member for Nelson and his family being monstered by the CLP in the 2012 election. That had a profound impact on the member for Nelson. Being a pragmatic, caring and community-minded person, he has crafted this motion into a resolution to be considered which would remove that element of monstering; we can all talk about our experiences in the 2012 election.
I do not have a problem with the part of the motion about signage, banners, balloons and colours. As a matter of fact we did that in the bush. It worked particularly well at the pre-poll in Tennant Creek with hooting horns, people yelling out and yack-aing. It created a buzz in the town when we set up our camp about 40 m from the pre-polling place to be visual.
We should separate signage from behaviour. It was the behaviour of inducements by the CLP in 2012 that was the marker for me as a candidate. I have been involved with bush polling for 30 years and have taken a very pragmatic approach to it over that time. I spent at least 20 of those years empowering people about democracy and how to vote. I spent an enormous amount of time and energy because it was enjoyable, productive and led to a great outcome. It was about getting people to the polling booth to exercise their vote for over 20 years in various regional and remote communities across the Barkly.
That paid off dividends in my own candidacy, much to the disgust of the Chief Minister who came into this House after the 2012 election and articulated how disappointed he was that I survived. He went after me with all guns blazing and was not able to take me out in what was the most aggressive bush campaign in my 30 years of being involved in bush polling in the Northern Territory.
There was no doubt the Chief Minister had cash. He was with a team that was cashed up in 2012. That directly related to the opportunity for inducement of bush voters. It was quite interesting in my case, where in many respects that behaviour from the CLP created aggression and frightened people. They had reservations and backed off as they were confused. They did not like that aggressive behaviour, the all-guns-blazing approach of the CLP, cashed up with a toxic shire strategy under their arm and a take-no-prisoner approach.
It feeds into the member for Nelson’s motion because I experienced it from the Roper Gulf country through the tablelands and into the southern Barkly. At one stage I thought it was only me, but then I realised all my colleagues in the bush were experiencing the same behaviour and aggression. If you read the NT general election 25 August 2012 report by the Electoral Commission, it pointed out that most of the complaints came from the bush. I quote from page 17 of that report:
- Most of the problems and complaints regarding canvassing in the NT are generated from alleged incidents occurring at remote polling locations. Remote mobile polling is conducted in testing conditions which provide added scope for discontent, transgression and complaint.
I will not go into some of those more specific behaviours. It is something the CLP will probably want to re-evaluate because it turned many people off. As the member for Nelson said in this motion, it upset many people. There was an incident with a traditional man aggressively attacking me outside a polling booth. It was very concerning to big groups of women who wanted to come in and vote. At the end of the day I celebrate that because my Alyawarra language skills came back with a passion and I was able to debate him in language. Some of those volunteers who were helping me could not believe it. I told them that I was completely immersed in Alyawarra for over four years. It came back at a time I needed it the most.
In the specifics of this motion, if we look at a 100 m zone to try to deal with a pragmatic resolution proposed in the motion, in some of the places I represent and will go to campaign, 100 m could put me on the boundary of the town. It might not be practical to apply it to these very small places, as people tend to generalise and stereotype Aboriginal communities – some of the big communities we have and celebrate in the Northern Territory. When you start to push out, there are lots of very small places with minimal infrastructure and that might create a problem.
It relates to what the member for Nelson said: a well-prepared candidate. A message for the CLP in this debate is trust and integrity versus adversity and inducement which is what I experienced over two weeks. That became a success for me and a defeat for the CLP. There were three other candidates in the race and they weaved their way through the maze. That was an election I will never forget after having been involved in bush polling for 30 years.
I take great delight in telling a story of a polling place where I refused to hand out how-to-vote cards. I did not want to hand them out. I had worked and lived with that community and I shed blood, sweat and tears with those people, so when I came back to ask for their support I refused to give them how-to-vote cards. I said, ‘If you do not know how to vote by this stage, it really does not matter anymore’. I was successful at that booth. The volunteers supporting me were horrified at this lunatic who was throwing out all political protocols and taking a huge risk. That reinforced my theory about trust and integrity versus adversity and inducement. The member for Nelson’s motion goes to the heart of that.
It was an interesting point to make about the media on polling day for the Queensland election in 2015, and the incredibly aggressive pro-LMP campaign run by The Courier Mail, which attacked Queensland Labor for over two weeks. You could say over 12 months, but in that last two-week period, that media outlet, The Courier Mail, attacked Labor and gave the LMP free kicks every day. Yet the result was a Labor victory. They were up against 79 seats and they turned it around and formed government.
It is interesting to me that it provided a good balance. That was a reassurance that media campaigns can overcook it. The public can judge for themselves. I do not think the public are so gullible or stupid. That is a great example where an aggressive media campaign through a recognised and acknowledged newspaper went horribly wrong.
Debate suspended.
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION LEGISLATION
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 117)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 117)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, these amendments to this legislation are based upon a review conducted in 2013-14. The review involved considerable public and stakeholder consultation, including an 84-day public comment period resulting in 72 submissions being made.
The Northern Territory scheme is a generous scheme in comparison with other schemes in Australia. Northern Territory insurers have flagged that pressures in the scheme will result in increased premiums for employers. The average premium rate in the Northern Territory is already one of the highest in Australia, with only the ACT and South Australia being higher.
These amendments will ensure the scheme is fair and balanced while being affordable, and enhances its primary focus on achieving early and successful return-to-work outcomes. To ensure that all participants in the scheme have a clear understanding of the purposes of the legislation, it is proposed the act will be named the Return to Work Act.
In regard to setting a five-year limit, the most significant proposal is to limit weekly benefits for most claimants to a maximum of five years, with medical and treatment costs to end 12 months after that date. However claimants who are assessed to have a significant permanent impairment of 15% of more will retain the existing entitlement of weekly benefits until their pension eligibility age, and be entitled to medical and treatment costs for life.
A new definition of ‘worker’ is proposed based on the approach of the Australian Taxation Office. Adopting this approach will make it easier for businesses to determine their workers compensation insurance obligations.
With regard to firefighters, these amendments include that the Northern Territory government now recognises there is a proven link between firefighting and the risk of some cancers, and has decided to provide presumptive legislation for firefighters, including volunteers of the NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Bushfires NT. It is the intent that any active firefighter or any firefighter who has been exposed to the hazards of fires can claim. The only limit we put on this is exposure requirements for volunteers, which is if you leave the service there is only a 10-year period of grace during which you can still apply.
Older firefighters entrusted with training or managing the next generation will continue to be eligible long after they hang up their hoses. The legislation was to be made retrospective to 25 August 2012, but will now be retrospective to 4 July 2011 in line with other jurisdictions.
To give career firefighters a chance to claim, a three-month period has been set where they can claim as if the commenced date was open. That is something this jurisdiction has introduced that no other has.
The proposed legislation establishes a rebuttable presumption that particular forms of cancer developed by career and volunteer firefighters are work related. This new provision will make the process of claiming workers compensation less cumbersome. Under the presumption, if a firefighter is diagnosed with one of the 12 cancers identified in the bill and served as a firefighter for the relevant qualifying period, it will be presumed that the cancer is an occupational disease and is therefore compensable.
For volunteer firefighters an additional requirement is proposed which is that the person must have attended at least 150 exposure events within any five-year period for brain cancer and leukaemia, and within 10-years for any of the remaining 10 cancers. This requirement ensures the presumption only applies to volunteers who have had some measureable exposure to the hazards of fire. As I said when the member for Nelson asked what an exposure event was, I can confirm that includes back-burning and training fires; any fire whatsoever is included in an exposure event.
In regard to older workers, other amendments recognise that people are working longer than the traditional pension age. Currently, workers who are injured after 67 years of age are restricted to a maximum of 26 weeks of incapacity benefit. The bill proposes that older workers will get 104 weeks compensation instead of 26 weeks. This will provide a more reasonable level of economic protection for older workers and is consistent with changes in other jurisdictions.
In regard to limit weekly payments, the calculation of normal weekly earnings is of key importance to determining an injured worker’s compensation entitlement. To achieve improved consistency, this bill provides rules for the calculation of a worker’s normal weekly earnings. The underlying objective is that the workers compensation entitlement will closely reflect the amount the injured worker would have continued to earn had they not been injured.
The review of the scheme recognised that a weakness in the present system is there can be little or no financial incentive for highly-paid workers or their employers to participate in the return-to-work process. The proposed change to remedy this is to limit the amount of weekly earnings that can be considered for the calculation of a worker’s weekly compensation.
In regard to lump sums, the review identified that the Territory has fallen behind other jurisdictions in the lump sum payable to dependents after the death of a worker. It is therefore proposed to increase the lump sum and the benefit for a funeral, in addition to creating a new benefit for counselling for dependent family members of the deceased worker.
In regard to administrative costs, the Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia where the administration costs of the workers compensation regulator are not funded by contributions from insurance premiums. The bill includes a provision that will require approved insurers and self-insurers to contribute to the operating costs of NT WorkSafe.
In summing up before we move to the committee stage, much has been said here today. I agree with the member for Blain that some things we were debating in parliament tonight were silly when we could have been debating important legislation like this. Much of it was tied up in politics.
I am disappointed to learn that the Labor opposition will vote against this legislation tonight. I hope they have changed their minds.
The key features of the bill are: the renamed legislation and adding objects to focus the intent of the act; creating presumptive legislation for firefighters; simplified definition of normal weekly earnings; restricting the level of normal weekly earnings; simplified definition of ‘worker’; applied limit to duration of compensation for incapacity and medical expenses, excluding strokes and heart attacks that occur at work but are not materially caused by work; improving benefits for older workers; and enabling increased funding by insurers for Northern Territory government activity in this area.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this legislation, especially Tommy Lawler and the firefighters union. Everyone has been very helpful in ensuring government gets this as right as it possibly can. This government should be applauded as we are about to introduce legislation which is the most generous of its type, more than any jurisdiction in this country.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Serial 117), together with the schedule of amendments No 32 circulated by the Minister for Business.
Clauses 1 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 10:
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendments 32.1 and 32.2.
These amendments include that the Northern Territory government now recognises that there is a proven link between firefighting and the risk of some cancers, and has decided to provide presumptive legislation for firefighters, including volunteers of Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Bushfires NT.
It is the intent that any active firefighter or any firefighter who has been exposed to the hazards of fires be able to claim. The only limit we put on this is the exposure requirements for volunteers. That is, if you leave the service there is only a 10-year period of grace during which you can still apply. Older firefighters now entrusted with training or managing the next generation will continue to be eligible long after they hang up their hoses.
The legislation was to be made retrospective to 25 August 2012 but will now be retrospective to 4 July 2011 in line with other jurisdictions.
To give career firefighters a chance to claim, a three-month period has been set where they can claim as if the commencement date was open. The proposed legislation establishes a rebuttable presumption that particular forms of cancer developed by career and volunteer firefighters are work related. This new provision will make the process of claiming workers compensation less cumbersome. Under the presumption if a firefighter is diagnosed with one of the 12 cancers identified in the bill and served as a firefighter for the relevant qualifying period, it will be presumed that the cancer is an operational disease and is therefore compensable.
For volunteer firefighters an additional requirement is proposed which is that the person must have attained at least 150 exposure events within any five-year period for brain cancer and leukaemia and within 10 years for any of the remaining 10 cancers. This requirement ensures that the presumption only applies to volunteers who have had some measurable exposure to the hazards of fire.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, I have a couple of questions in regard to the amendments. I want to check with you so I do not lose the opportunity. Following on from this do I get a chance to ask a question of the regulations as per the bill?
Mr CHAIR: Yes, you do.
Ms WALKER: Okay, thank you. Minister, my question to you is in relation to section 203A(1)(c)(ii) about the 10-year period of grace. Does this mean that a firefighter who has ceased working 11 years previously – not 10 years but 11 years – is prevented from applying for workers compensation by this clause?
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is only if they have left the service, yes.
Ms WALKER: So, if they are still within the service and they have reached their 10 years – they may be at 12 years – they are still eligible?
Mr CHANDLER: If they are still in the service, member for Nhulunbuy, they are still covered. It is only if they have left the service.
Ms WALKER: Would that be if in the 11th year after their departure from employment it was clearly demonstrated they had contracted that work-related cancer during their service due to the exposure to hazardous chemicals?
Mr CHANDLER: I just need to clarify the scenario. You are saying somebody who left the service 11 or 12 years ago and today has discovered they have cancer?
Ms WALKER: Yes.
Mr CHANDLER: All right. My advice in that case is that we do not have any control over what someone has done in that time, but it is a 10-year period, according to this legislation, yes.
Ms WALKER: Okay, thanks minister for clarifying that.
My next question is to seek clarification regarding section 203A(1)e) which states:
- a claim for compensation is made by the worker within 3 months after the commencement.
This is the sunset clause. What makes the claim eligible? How does someone lodge a claim? Is it an e-mail to their employer? Does it require a doctor’s certificate?
Mr CHANDLER: My understanding, member for Nhulunbuy, is it would be the normal process of a workers compensation claim. It would start with a member visiting a doctor, treatment starting and a determination made that it is a workers compensation claim. Some people have been through that process in their lifetime, where doctors fill out forms in regard to a workers compensation claim. It is usually between the worker and a doctor who determines this is a workers compensation claim.
Ms WALKER: Okay, I hear and understand what you are saying. So it has to be commenced as a workers compensation claim through the formal process with a doctor? I highlight that in some remote areas of the Territory where a doctor may not be on hand, access to workers compensation – depending on the employer, particularly in the more remote communities – could be challenging.
Mr CHANDLER: Is this a question?
Ms WALKER: An observation, if you would like to comment on it.
Mr CHANDLER: My advice – just to clarify – is that it could be an Aboriginal Health Worker who starts that process. It just needs to start within three months.
Ms WALKER: Okay, thanks, minister. The diagnosis of cancer can be fraught – I am sure many of us may know of somebody as I do – as it can take a while to diagnosis that cancer was making this person sick.
Mr CHANDLER: I have no reason to doubt that. But in this case you have legislation that has been backdated to 4 July 2011 containing a sunset clause. It is open slather at the moment, for at least three months.
If somebody has developed cancer, or even started the process before 2011, I expect today they would know whether they have cancer or not.
Ms WALKER: Fair enough. Thanks, minister. I certainly recognise that the sunset clause, at the moment, stands to benefit four people, but there may well be others.
Is there any capacity in this legislation for cross-border legislation for firefighters who move interstate, who may have served for a certain period of time, say in South Australia, then come to the Northern Territory? Also the reverse of that where they have served in the Northern Territory. We know we are losing far too many of our firefighters at the moment. Is there cross-border recognition about service?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes.
Ms WALKER: Is that because of the national legislation from 2011?
Mr CHANDLER: If a firefighter moves from interstate to the Northern Territory, their service is recognised cross-border.
Ms WALKER: That is helpful, thank you, minister. They are all of the questions I had in relation to that. I know you have a script to follow, but I have one question in the regulations.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 22, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 23:
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, I move amendment 32.3.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Minister, I have a question for you as I flagged at the outset in regard to regulations. I am looking at new regulation 5B to be inserted after 5A in clause 26 of the bill. It lists the 12 prescribed diseases. This is a relatively simple question and I am sure you will have an answer for it. Compared to what the Labor opposition had in a private members’ bill, it excludes primary site liver cancer, primary site skin cancer, primary site lung cancer and asbestos-related diseases. Given the hazards firefighters face in breathing in hazardous materials and toxic fumes, why has primary site lung cancer not been included?
Mr CHANDLER: Can you repeat that last bit, please?
Ms WALKER: I was asking you about the four prescribed diseases that were included in the private members’ bill introduced by the opposition on two occasions which are not included, and why primary site lung cancer in particular is not included given the exposure to hazardous fumes firefighters are exposed to?
Mr CHANDLER: First, member for Nhulunbuy, my advice is the cancers listed were the ones that were listed federally so there is national consistency. Lung cancer is already covered in other legislation. It is already there, it is covered.
Ms WALKER: That is interesting. I did not know that, minister. If that is the case, it is positive. However, why is it not listed separately as a prescribed disease, and in what other cover or legislation would workers be covered?
Mr CHANDLER: Member for Nhulunbuy, my advice is asbestosis is already a deemed disease so it is already covered and there is no need to prescribe it in this legislation. It has already been demonstrated quite clearly that asbestosis can be a work-related injury and can lead to cancer, therefore it is already covered.
Ms WALKER: That is true of asbestos-related disease and lung cancer. Is that also the case for primary site skin cancer and primary site liver cancer? Why are they excluded? As one firefighter explained to me today, especially in this hot climate, bushfires generally happen in hot places. They could be out in the hot sun for hours, not always with sunblock applied. It would seem a reasonable risk that firefighters are exposed to.
Mr CHANDLER: My advice is the list was originally based on the national legislation to keep this consistent. But the way this legislation has been framed, being covered under regulations is not ruled out any time in the future. If this government or future governments were ever given evidence that conditions of firefighters do attribute to those cancers the list can be changed. We have not closed the book on that, but we have kept the legislation to be nationally consistent.
Ms WALKER: Thanks minister, I appreciate your answer. The reality is, in the position I was coming from, other jurisdictions here and overseas recognise the whole gamut of diseases.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I wish to place on the public record that the minister did not respond to any of the questions I raised on behalf of stakeholders, constituents and the community. The minister simply read from a prepared script and ignored all of the advice, the opportunity for making comment and the important opportunity for the government to explain anything to the constituents who put together some important points.
It is a sad way to complete this passage of legislation. It is important for me to place on the public record that mine was a contribution representing voices of the Territory and real concerns, and I was shocked it was completely ignored.
Madam Speaker, that is the last of my contribution. As Territory opposition members have said on a number of occasions, should we be judged worthy and elected as the government of the Northern Territory, we have some very pragmatic amendments to bring to this legislation.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, some days in parliament are surprising. We have heard in the last two years that Labor has supported presumptive legislation for firefighters. They were in government for eleven-and-a-half years and did not introduce presumptive legislation which, when coming to government, they supported. They have today decided to turn their backs on presumptive legislation by announcing they will not be supporting this legislation.
This legislation gives rights to workers in the Northern Territory. It particularly supports the firefighters we have sought to support in this Chamber while on both sides for a long time. I find it surprising that both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fannie Bay were not present during this debate to make contributions. They have spoken loudly and strongly, but on a date when the Country Liberals are bringing in legislation to support firefighters they are not present in the debate in this Chamber. That is highly disrespectful for firefighters …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister well knows that reference to the presence or absence of members in the Chamber is not how we do it.
Mr Giles: I am talking about debate.
Ms Walker: No, you said they are not in the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy! Chief Minister, please do not reference anyone who is out of the Chamber. Continue. Withdraw.
Mr GILES: Thank you. As I was saying I find it quite sad that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fannie Bay did not participate in this debate today.
We have worked for a couple of years on this. We have undertaken a very firm investigation in regard to presumptive legislation, looking around the world and nationally at what we can do in the Northern Territory. We sought to introduce legislation, backdate it to when we were first came into government on 25 August 2012, and since backdated it even further to 2011, as this bill shows. We thought it was right to stand up for workers in the Northern Territory, particularly to support those firefighters.
I put on the record a few corrections in regard to an incorrect media release which was issued by the member for Barkly earlier today. He referred to some changes that were being made reflecting that Territory workers would no longer come under the workers compensation scheme because the definition of ‘an employee’ has changed. That is quite incorrect. The minister spoke about that previously.
The new definition is the same as the Australian Taxation Office and will capture workers who are, or should be, pay-as-you-go workers. This has been clarified quite well by the minister in his debate today. Reading of the legislation would provide clarity in that regard. Using the ATO definition of ‘worker’ ensures we have consistency with other states and territories. This has stood the test of time and removes confusion for workers and employees.
There is reference to the current scheme being a no-fault scheme providing for the rehabilitation and compensation of injured workers, and funded on that basis since 1987. The new act will still be a no-fault scheme.
It also incorrectly said in the media release that the amendments now introduce a five-year limit for payments and a six-year limit for medical or other costs for injured workers. Even with the introduction of the amendments in this bill or act as its reference, this is the most generous scheme in Australia. Permanent impairment over 15% is still compensated for life. Less than 1% of successful claims run over five years.
The South Australian Labor government has set its limit to two years, which is a typical maximum length for a major injury that is not a serious impairment. This emphasises how generous the Northern Territory scheme is. Additionally, South Australian Labor has set its threshold at 30% which sets the bar a lot higher than the generous Northern Territory scheme at 15%.
What this says to me is that the Northern Territory Country Liberals government is providing a much more compassionate scheme for workers in the Territory. It is supporting firefighters in particular, much more than the South Australian Labor government and the Northern Territory Labor opposition which is opposing this bill.
There is a comment in the member for Barkly’s media release:
- ‘Only a handful of workers will meet the very high bar – over 15% of what’s termed ‘whole person impairment’ – to be able to continue receiving payments and support,’ Mr McCarthy said.
This new act will make it the most generous scheme in Australia; it is a low bar, not a high bar ...
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, I ask you to pause there. The third reading is not an opportunity to refute matters raised in any closing debates or the debate before. It is not an opportunity to introduce new material. It is to talk generally on what has been discussed in the parliament.
Mr GILES: I was talking generally on what has been discussed throughout the debate, particularly the second reading.
On that point in regard to the high bar as claimed by Labor, I again reflect that the South Australian Labor government has set 30%, New South Wales is set at 20% and the Northern Territory is at 15%. To put that into context, as horrible as it is to talk about injury and impairment, losing a thumb or a few fingers is more than 15% impairment, as is a bad knee that cannot be fully restored by surgery.
That shows you the level of the bar we are setting compared to South Australian Labor. It shows inconsistencies in Labor’s claims. It says to me that the South Australian Labor government, which is a good example, believes the level set in their scheme is good, but quite clearly the Northern Territory Country Liberals government is setting a much lower bar at 15%. We are being more supportive to workers in the Northern Territory.
The huff and puff of Labor over the last two years surprised me. Our legislation lowers the bar and provides a greater level of access to Territory workers – firefighters for the purpose of this debate – and we backdated it a couple of times; the first time, realistically, to when we came into government. If Labor was serious it would have done it in its eleven-and-a-half years of government. Not only did we backdate it until then, we decided to backdate it even further to 4 July 2011 which is the date the first presumptive legislation in Australia was enacted. We have gone back to before we were even elected and then allowed a three-month window.
Is it generous? Yes. Is it right? Absolutely. Should we be supporting it? Absolutely we should be supporting it because it protects Territory workers. Two things amaze me. One is that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fannie Bay, who allegedly fought hard for this, have not contributed to the debate today for the passage of this legislation. It shows that it is all about politics, not policy for Labor. The so-called fighters for the worker are not present for that debate.
Everyone on this side of the Chamber, I guarantee, is willing to fight for this legislation for the workers of the Northern Territory, and for the firefighters. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come back into the Chamber and have a fight …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
Mr Tollner: What is the standing order number?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, do not push the envelope!
Thank you for withdrawing, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: It is a fair point to ask why they are not debating this. The second point is why are they not supporting it when it will provide a greater level of protection and cover for Territory workers? Today is the day that Labor in the Northern Territory turned its back on the Territory worker and Territory firefighters. Congratulations, minister, for bringing this legislation forward.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I remind you that no new material may be introduced into third reading speeches.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for that reminder. Thank you also for the call.
I back up some of the comments made by the Chief Minister. I have been appalled by this debate. Firemen have been used as pawns by the Labor Party. Most firemen have been convinced that the passage of this legislation will mean their claim will be automatically paid out. Nothing could be further from the truth. That has been said time and time again, yet the Labor Party has unashamedly convinced firies that if they have contracted cancer the second they put in a claim they will be paid. That is not true.
This legislation simply removes the obligation from the employee to prove they contracted cancer from fighting fires to the insurance company to prove they did not. It is, in no way, an assessment that they have contracted these diseases through their occupation. It is simply a presumption they may have.
Similarly, it applies to nurses in the health system. If a nurse contracts AIDS it is presumed they have contracted it through their work. Later assessments may find the nurse – I am not talking about anyone in particular – may well have been a heroin addict sharing needles …
Ms Fyles: The Tinker Bell phone is ringing.
Mr TOLLNER: It is interesting that you would interject, member for Nightcliff. You came in here with a dopey motion you expected us all to ‘debate’, then when there is something serious about firefighters you do not want to listen. You cannot be bothered mustering the troops, who have made such a song and dance about this, to get in here for the vote or have a discussion. You would rather talk about imaginary islands than things that matter to people.
Madam Speaker, I hope the expectations have not been raised to unreasonable levels for those firefighters who have cancer that they will automatically be paid now. It is a hard enough thing in life to be told you have a debilitating disease like cancer and have your hopes raised for purely base political reasons only to find you still do not qualify. I pray that those four firefighters who have cancer are assessed as having contracted it through their jobs. If they have not there is a lot the Labor Party will have to answer for on this one.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I heard a lot of bluster from the members opposite during this debate. We were told repeatedly that this legislation was not supported. To see this go to the second reading vote being put and not a single dissenting voice on the other side indicates the Labor Party have been thoroughly disingenuous in this debate. They promised they would fight this. They did it every time they said they do not support this legislation. But their voices are utterly silent and have been since the moment we walked in here.
What game are they playing? Why is it so important that they remain silent now, after three hours of General Business Day? Is it possible they have received a telephone call at some point during those three hours? Was it possibly from a couple of disgruntled union members who have been listening to this debate? We know they have been listening, because that much was said during the course of the debate ...
Ms Walker: Why would they not?
Mr ELFERINK: Why would they not indeed? Why will you not vote against this legislation, as you promised?
Mr McCarthy: Give it a chance. You know this process better than anybody.
Mr ELFERINK: I gave you the chance. Madam Speaker gave you the chance when she said, ‘The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Those of the opinion say aye’. Voices said aye on this side of the House. To the question, ‘To the contrary, no’, what did I hear? Not a single word.
Let us see if they are good enough to say no on the third reading. The point where you should have sought to kill it was before it went into the committee stage. You had the opportunity and you remained utterly silent. You guys are utterly wicked, and you will play politics at any level at any time. Congratulations. This is the alternative government of the Northern Territory.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 11 Noes 8
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Ms Moss
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Price
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim and member for Karama!
Mr ELFERINK: I acknowledge Professor Victor Nossar who is retiring this week. As a senior community paediatrician, he has provided leadership …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, can you pause. I would like to hear what you are saying and there is too much noise in the Chamber. Members, either resume your seats or leave the Chamber – whatever. If we could have a bit of quiet please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will start again. I acknowledge Professor Victor Nossar who is retiring this week. As a senior community paediatrician, he has provided leadership in child health both in the Northern Territory and nationally. He has led the focus on improving health and development outcomes for children in the Northern Territory for the past five years.
Victor began his paediatric career in the Northern Territory working as a Paediatric Registrar and paediatrician in the early 1980s. He has considerable experience in evaluating and strengthening healthcare systems both here in Australia as well as in developing countries.
Victor has firmly established the importance of early years as the period of greatest opportunity for improving health outcomes and preventing future population ill health. Victor has widely promoted the importance of evidence-based programs and that ensuring a systematic approach will deliver measurable improvements.
In the Northern Territory under his leadership, the Healthy Under 5 Kids program has been extended to many more services and families across the Northern Territory. This program provides consistent advice and support for parents and is based on the best available evidence. The aim of the program is to help all parents provide the best possible start in life to their children.
During his time in the Northern Territory, Victor has tirelessly worked with many stakeholders in the government and non-government sectors, always with one focus: better outcomes for children in early years.
He will be missed, not only by his colleagues in the Health Department, but also staff and organisations across the Northern Territory. I take the opportunity to commend Professor Nossar for his leadership in child health and thank him again for his incredibly important work. I am confident the programs and work he established will continue. I wish him well for the future and a well-deserved retirement.
I had lunch with Professor Nossar the other day. I can advise the House, and through the House to him directly, that his words to me during that lunch were not forgotten; they have found fertile soil in which to grow. They were wise words which will be acted upon because I fundamentally agree with the conclusions he brought to my attention.
Again, I thank him for even coming out of retirement briefly to have that conversation with me. It clearly demonstrates his passion for the kids in the Northern Territory and how we should go about making mums better mums and kids healthier and safer into the future. I will act upon the advice he has given me.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I wish to place on the record tonight the recently-announced sport house captains and vice captains for Nhulunbuy Primary School and Nhulunbuy High School, as well as the Nhulunbuy High School captains and SRC representatives.
First, Nhulunbuy Primary School sport house and vice captains for 2015. Congratulations to the House Captains of Mitchell House, Billie Francis and Kittinan Hart and the Vice Captains Tiana Inglis and Reuben O’Callaghan; the House Captains of Wirrwawuy House, Will Bridgfoot and Tanika Spirritt and the Vice Captains, Broden Perry-Maymuru and Ella MacMahon; the House Captains for Daliwuy House, Ella Seaniger and Noah Canobie and the Vice Captains, Shae Whitmore and Josh Blundell; the House Captains for Arnhem House, Tianna Piddick and Louis Smith and Vice Captains, Jacob Mery and Flynn Asplin.
At Nhulunbuy High School the sport House Captains for Latram House are Matthew McLean and Liyadari Alahakoon and the Vice Captains are Katelyn Muchow and Dominic Millar; the House Captains for Giddies House are Sam Smith and Meagan Morris and the Vice Captains are Jean-Paul Gilmore and Mahlia Snowden – there you go, ‘Snogga’ Snowden’s daughter; the House Captains for Roper House are Tayla Edwards and Ellie Misob and Vice Captains are Cheyenne Reynolds and Jack Reardon.
Congratulations to Nhulunbuy High School captains, Year 12 students Tayla Edwards and Alex Parfitt, who I know will do an amazing job as leaders of their school student body. Nhulunbuy High School has announced its student representative council so I offer congratulations to the following students: Riley Neenan, Meagan Morris, Savanne Canobie, Alex Parfitt, Tayla Edwards, Liam Cottrell, Danni Tawhi, Teneka’Lee Solar, Noke Fainga’a, Harry Parfitt, Wanetta Willis, Zane Rynski, Siena Stubbs, Harry Pitkin, Murray Bamford, Matewai Campbell, Claire Harris, Alannah Bond, Maitane Oakford, Mollie Graham, Joel Morris, and Jaylin Perry-Maymuru.
Unfortunately, travels around my electorate or into Darwin have meant that I have missed the ceremonies for the presentations for all of these brilliant young students from the high school and the primary school. I am very sorry that I have been unable to attend those. I normally would if I could if I was at home. I offer my congratulations to all of these young people who have taken on very responsible positions within their school communities. As elected positions they are a clear indicator of the high esteem in which their peers and their school community holds them. I congratulate them and know they will be fantastic representatives and wonderful ambassadors for their school in the roles they have.
I will also briefly talk about a highly successful International Women’s Day lunch that was held in Nhulunbuy at the Arnhem Club recently. International Women’s Day was Saturday 8 March. Because we do things a little differently in Nhulunbuy we held ours on Sunday 15 March. I was very happy to host and organise this luncheon but not without some fantastic support. I highlight Paula Thompson, the Operations Manager at the Arnhem Club, who is an incredible woman. She takes on any function that comes her way and she is always so supportive of community events. A huge thank you to Paula who responded within minutes to my request on Sunday 9 March when I asked her ‘What do you think, can we hold a lunch for up to 100 women in a weeks’ time?’ She did not hesitate. Thank you to her staff at the Arnhem Club, including chef Andrew and all of the others who helped to make it a successful day.
With these International Women’s Day events we do not normally have a fundraising focus but I decided it would be a good idea this year. I wanted to acknowledge the hardship we have all seen on the community struck by Cyclone Lam. So when I advertised the function I advertised that any monies we made from the event would go towards supporting women and children across the communities of Ramingining, Milingimbi and Galiwinku at Elcho Island.
I rounded up two guest speakers and was delighted that both accepted our invitation. I invited Merrkiyawuy Ganambarr-Stubbs, Principal at Yirrkala School. She would normally have loved to have been there but she was down south with her husband, Will. Congratulations to Will who lined up for a fairly significant award in recognition of his contribution to the Indigenous art scene. Merrkiyawuy knows I will be asking her to speak at another event.
We were delighted to have Jessica Dillon who has lived in Nhulunbuy for a number of years. Jessica is quite a remarkable woman with two little kids. She instigated, of her own volition, a campaign immediately post-Cyclone Lam to donate goods – from clothing to household items, bedding, bottled water and non-perishable food items – to be shipped to these communities. She used her own home as her base and drove her car around town for days picking up from people’s addresses and taking goods back to her place. She then sorted through these items with some assistance from her mum and a couple of friends. She organised – through the generosity of barge operators such as Sea Swift and Toll, charter companies such as Laynha Air, Black Diamond Aviation, Air Frontier, Marthakal Yolngu Airlines and perhaps others that I have missed – to send hundreds and hundreds of kilograms of these donated items to these three communities. I know for a fact those items got through as I checked in the briefings I had.
Jessica had a fantastic story to tell, as did Janine Bevis, the government’s on-the-ground coordinator at Milingimbi. She hit ground zero the day after Cyclone Lam had been through and is an incredibly hard-working individual. The women at this lunch listened with much interest to the story Janine had to tell about the work she was doing and her experiences upon hitting the ground at Milingimbi and being the person in charge of organising things to get that community back on its feet.
During their contributions and sharing their stories with women gathered at this lunch – we had 95 women, which is a pretty good turnout I reckon – our two speakers, Jessica and Janine, made us laugh and cry. It was a wonderful opportunity for the women of Nhulunbuy.
A bunch of wonderful Yolngu ladies from Yirrkala and Wallaby Beach attended our luncheon as well. We all enjoyed hearing what they had to say and to hear, firsthand, what the experience was like and the stories of how Cyclone Lam had turned people’s lives upside down when it passed through those communities. Who would have thought that just a few weeks later the same communities would go through another cyclone?
I also thank a couple of other people who contributed to the success of the International Women’s Day lunch. Robyn Pellenat, God bless her, arrived at the lunch with a parcel of goods from a little business she operates to contribute for a raffle prize or an auction. Thanks to that we managed raise $110 from the items she donated, which was fantastic for these communities.
I also thank Sarah Mitchell, my electorate officer, who is one of the most incredibly organised individuals you could ever hope to meet and have working with and for you. I could not have done that luncheon without Sarah, who basically did all the organising while I was attending to other business. Thank you, Sarah, so much for your efforts.
I also thank the Yolngu ladies, including my friend Dhanggal, who I contacted first to say, ‘What do you think? Will you be free next Sunday the 15th? You do the most beautiful singing and we would love to hear you sing.’ Twelve ladies from Yirrkala and Wallaby Beach attended the lunch. I have to acknowledge Eunice Marika who led the singing and is a most incredible lady. She is a very devout Christian and sings the most beautiful songs. There was some argument about whether she would be allowed to do a solo and she did, and we thought that was pretty good. Well done, Eunice.
Jennifer Peers is always by my side when we are organising these events. I take my hat off to her. The good news was this luncheon raised in excess of $3400 and we will be splitting that three ways and looking very closely at which organisations that support women and children we target.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to Mr Graham Chandler for his outstanding service to the Northern Territory. On Friday 27 March, Graham commences his retirement after a career spanning nearly 43 years in the Northern Territory government, a significant achievement by all accounts.
Graham commenced his career on 23 October 1972 in the then Commonwealth Department of the Northern Territory and Department of Education in various administrative and central supply positions covering contracts, procurement and warehousing. Graham assumed the role of manager of supply, and after five years ventured into various assistant director roles in management services and schools policy with a focus on non-government schools.
In 1995, as a policy officer in the Department of the Chief Minister, Graham assisted the coordination of the Northern Territory input into the joint Northern Territory Commonwealth Working Group on Statehood and developed a policy and strategies relating to further constitutional development of the Northern Territory. The following year, as Assistant Secretary Policy and Coordination, Graham successfully led constitutional development, statehood, international treaties and national competition policy initiatives.
Graham’s ability to negotiate at the Territory and national level with key Commonwealth government counterparts came to the fore with his representation on Commonwealth and Northern Territory steering committees, including statehood and the Council of Australian Governments Committee on Regulatory Reform and the National Competition Policy Working Group. In 1999 Graham was seconded to the then Department of Attorney-General, and for two years led the Aboriginal Land Division Legal Practice, providing legal representation and advice to the Northern Territory government on Aboriginal land, native title and other related matters. This followed Graham’s successful completion of a Bachelor of Laws through part-time study at the then Northern Territory University.
In his current role as Director of Strategic and Federal Policy in the Department of the Chief Minister, Graham has provided key representation in national, inter-governmental and international forums, including Council of Australian Governments’ Business Regulation and Competition Working Group, National Licensing Steering Committee, Standing Committee on Treaties, working groups including the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, a consultative group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Australian government delegation to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Cross-Jurisdictional Review Forum on Mutual Recognition Agreement and Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangements.
Other key achievements include: the development, implementation and coordination of seamless economy reforms; initial implementation coordination of National Counter Terrorism Committee Inter-Government Agreement; development, implementation and oversight of the NT Regulatory Impact Statement process; chair and participation in various Northern Territory government reviews, reference or working groups such as the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement, Port of Darwin review, Electricity Market reference group, proposed amalgamation of safety regulators, transport reform steering committee, and Aboriginal land coordination committee.
A recent achievement of Graham’s was the successful negotiation and signing of the bilateral assessment agreement developed to streamline the environmental assessment process as a step to establishing a one-stop shop for environmental approvals in the Northern Territory. This significant milestone is the starting point for bilateral negotiation of approvals.
I wish Graham all the very best for his retirement and offer my best wishes to Noel and the family. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank Graham for his outstanding contribution to the Northern Territory which has spanned nearly 43 years.
I also note the sad passing of Jackie Hargreaves on Tuesday 24 February 2015. Jackie was a highly-valued Territorian and an outstanding contributor to our tourism industry.
Jackie was born in Melbourne on 17 July 1929. She arrived in Darwin at Christmas time in 1959 from Wollongong, where she had been a trainee nurse, together with husband Bill, who got a job as a rigger on the Stokes Hill powerhouse project.
As noted in her eulogy, she was surely one of the best Christmas presents the city ever had. She started working as a barmaid at the Vic Hotel which was then owned by the Lim family, and some years later went on to work in the Hotel Darwin’s famous Hot and Cold Bar. Jackie then moved on to the RSL Club, where she eventually opened the Razzle Restaurant. She joined the Darwin Turf Club in 1960 and bought the first of eight horses. She took out a trainer’s licence and had victories with Miss Janina and Zabis, and on one occasion she owned the only four horses in a race, which makes it quite easy to collect all the prizes for a race.
As Jackie pursued what was an increasingly expensive hobby, she and husband Bill decided to buy land in the Daly River area so she could grow lucerne for stockfeed, as well as fruit and vegetables for her homegrown business, Jackie’s Fruit Supply at Nightcliff. They took out a loan to buy tractors, slashers, harvesters and bulldozers to clear the land. Eventually Jackie gave the racing game away and also separated from Bill.
Jackie farmed during the Dry and got casual work during the Wet Season. She sold the shop to work on the farm and then met Laurie, who used to service the farm equipment. Jackie sold the farm and went into partnership with Laurie, and together they bought the Adelaide River Inn from the famed Myrtle Fawcett on 15 November 1973. The pub became known as the most vibrant place anywhere down the track from Darwin to Alice. It was full of Territory character and characters. Bull catchers and buffalo hunters mixed with miners, road workers, farmers and tourists, and many long-term Territorians have their own special story to tell of stopping for a cold beer in the beer garden at Adelaide River Inn.
Jackie and Laurie expanded with a caravan park and petrol station. Then as Litchfield Park began to be developed as a major destination in its own right, they invested in land at Batchelor. The Rum Jungle Motor Inn opened on 1 April 1988 and became known as ‘the flashiest pub in the scrub’. Jackie continued to work to ensure it was a viable business until they sold out in 2000.
But even in her 70s, Jackie did not ease off. She was a founding member of the Zonta Club in Darwin and was president three times. She was also a member of many organisations including the Darwin Regional and Batchelor/Adelaide River Tourist Development Association, as well as a powerful force within the Country Liberal Party representing the Victoria River Branch and a member of the central council. She became a life member of Tourism Top End having spent at least 10 years on the executive. She was a recipient of the Minister’s Award for Excellence, the big Brolga, and a member of Skl International, a professional organisation of tourism leaders around the world.
Jackie was a passionate believer in liaising with Territorians and promoting the Northern Territory to the best of her ability. She was a remarkable women, a hard worker and successful business woman. She loved the Territory and her life and business adventures reflected her dedication to serving the community.
She was a strong voice and advocate for the Batchelor region and helped develop the tourism industry of Litchfield National Park. Jackie was a great host and a wonderful character with an outrageous sense of humour. She will be sadly missed as an outstanding old-style Territorian. Our condolences go to her family and friends.
I also note the death of long-time public servant Adam Lowe. Adam was born in the Northern Territory on 3 September 1939 into a longstanding Darwin Chinese family whose origins go back to a small village somewhere west of Canton.
He was a second-generation Australian-born Chinese. His grandfather came to the Northern Territory in the 1800s searching, as many of his countrymen did, for that elusive pot of gold. His father was a blacksmith in the Pine Creek area, and Adam was born the eldest of 13 children.
Moving to Darwin, the family eventually settled on a parcel of land now used for the Darwin City Council golf course. It was there that his father established his market garden and mango plantation during the 1920s and 1930s. Adam met his wife Roberta in Darwin and 36 years of happy marriage produced six children and three grandchildren.
Adam spent 40 years in the public service and held many positions in the various sections of the Department of Health in Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Adam recalled entering his office during these years only to be greeted by his supervisor with a stern look. The director told him to sit down and asked whether or not he was ready for some straight talking. Adam said yes, but could not work out what was going on. The supervisor told Adam that he was concerned about his output and that he needed some cranking up. Adam explained to the director and the supervisor they both had given him some special assignments that were sensitive, both politically and industrially, and had requested that he discussed them with no one. At the same time, Adam had been expected to run the branch normally. The assignment took up a lot of time. The director appeared satisfied with the explanation. As Adam was halfway out of the door, the director suddenly said, ‘I believe you applied for the Senior Planning Officer’s position?’ ‘Yes’, he said as he propped up the doorway. ‘Congratulations, Adam, the job is yours.’ Adam said, ‘Thank you’, and proceeded to leave once more only to have the director’s voice boom out again, ‘By the way, you were the only applicant’.
He once wrote that he had no regrets staying in the public service all those years and enjoyed all the jobs he performed. He found it ironic that he should be so positive about his career as a public servant, because in his last year of high school, and having been through several visits by career counsellors, the last thing he wanted to do was become a public servant.
His desire at the time was to be an astrophysicist or an astronomer. Adam had an avid fascination for trains in all their forms which led to the hobby of model railroading. He was a keen photographer and built up a country music collection along with magazines and books on all his passions.
Madam Speaker, 40 years is indeed a long time in the public service, and Adam Lowe has served the people of the Northern Territory well. Our thoughts are with his family, wife Roberta, and children Trenton, Vernon, Laurence, Mervin, Corrine, and Nerida. Rest in peace, Adam.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, tonight I talk about the youth sector across the Northern Territory, specifically youth funding. This is inclusive of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy funding that is allocated by the federal government. I feel this is something that is incredibly important to the youth and community sectors and Territorians, and they want to hear us stand up for them in this regard.
I will start on the local level because tonight there has been a meeting in Alice Springs to talk about some of these issues they are seeing. The proposal of a youth curfew is being raised again by some members of the community. One thing definitely clear in this conversation is that the community of Alice Springs is looking for a sustainable solution. This morning in this House the Chief Minister was flippant about this meeting and those concerns. I suppose if a tree falls in the woods and the Chief Minister has his fingers in his ears, then perhaps it did not happen.
In a letter to the Centralian Advocate last Friday, the member for Araluen took aim squarely at the CLP’s decision about youth services in Alice Springs while she was a minister of the government. Some of the points made in that letter include:
- In the two-and-a-half years the CLP has been in government, we have stripped back funding to night time youth services to pre-2010 levels, leaving the town exposed again to serious social unrest.
And later, about renewed calls for a youth curfew in Alice Springs:
- The solution was found to be properly resourced and well integrated night time youth services.
The member for Araluen, in that same letter, called for a strategic approach to youth funding in Alice Springs which I wholeheartedly support.
Some of the comments we have heard in this House relating to the defunding of the Youth Street Outreach Service (YSOS) shows a misunderstanding of what this service did. When the Minister for Children and Families and those opposite go down the predictable lines of funding for funding’s sake and people wanting to throw money at the problem, they are demonstrating that they are totally missing the point that the youth sector, Territory Labor and it would seem Alice Springs town councillors and even some of their own colleagues are trying to make: we are all calling for a strategic action plan to youth issues in Alice Springs and across the Territory and an integrated night time response. Getting that right would be much more cost effective.
Interestingly, there was an article in 2010, ‘Alice must regain the night’ in the Centralian Advocate on 24 January where the member for Braitling apparently was listening and called for more resources to be directed towards Family and Children Services. Unfortunately, under the CLP government now led by the Chief Minister, we have seen the complete opposite of this and deep criticism of anybody who suggests the same. It has been especially disappointing to not received answers to serious questions in this House about the funding to the Department of Children and Families, recommendations from experts on child protection, and an integrated response in Alice Springs. I sincerely hope we see some of these things raised and considered in the budget next month.
It has been additionally disappointing to hear the mixed messages from the CLP government about taking the fight up to Canberra on services which have lost out under the Indigenous Advancement strategy. I quote from the NT News article on 14 March this year:
Nigel Scullion said last month only those providers ‘completely hopeless at delivering services’ would miss out on continued funding under the … strategy.
We are pleased to hear about those who have received funding and that some have been successful in having these decisions reversed after their lobbying efforts. I believe Barkly Shire Council is one of those. However this process remains chaotic and confusing and is a complete mess.
I and others remain concerned for those organisations that have proven their worth in their communities, in particular those who are providing services for young people, who seem to be amongst the biggest representation of services that are missing out. I remain concerned that it seems we have a government which cannot be clear about whether or not it is advocating for what is vital funding for the Northern Territory.
This morning a question was ducked in Question Time on what the CLP, which is a successful recipient of funding awarded under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, will spend the money on. The Chief Minister continues to refer to the $4.2m of youth funding across the Northern Territory but I understand this money is yet to hit the ground.
While I am aware of the desire to keep the criteria flexible and I support this intention, I raise the issue that communities are in need of these resources now and are communicating that to every one of us. While I am aware of this desire to keep it flexible and see some innovative solutions, we need to look at clear time lines of when this funding will come through for our communities across the Northern Territory. We need a clear process on how the regional coordination committees will be expected to consult with the sector and how the best use of this funding will occur. Our services across the Territory – in the Barkly, Alice Springs, the Top End and everywhere in between – are waiting with bated breath to know if they will get a look in on this money.
The Chief Minister said today additional money is going back into many youth services. Is it new funding or is it funding that is going back into youth services? We know the answer, so does the community, and as demonstrated by this Chief Minister’s comments to media about funding decisions around YSOS in Alice Springs, it seems he does also.
I am also concerned that organisations are now in the position of having to decide how to keep their programs open, which will be reflected in lobbying for the $4.2m in Territory funding over four years. The Indigenous Advancement Strategy cuts will directly impact on the Northern Territory government’s process.
Madam Speaker, we are calling for transparency in properly resourced services where the government has identified them as essential, a government that listens to the community and the sector and stands up for Territorians even when it comes to its mates in Canberra.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I will talk about the good things we are doing. It is Parks Week. I do not know if the opposition has been to any of the activities that have been taking place throughout the Northern Territory.
First, I thank the Parks and Wildlife Commission staff, particularly the community engagement team, for putting in an incredible effort over the last couple of weeks to run 22 unique experiences for Parks Week 2015. Parks Week 2015 was celebrated across the Territory from 6 March to 15 March. It is pleasing to see that community participation was over 60% higher than last year, where we had about 860 people. This year 1300 people engaged in Parks Week mostly through face-to-face activities with my dedicated staff.
An additional 600 people are expected to have viewed the Parks Week information and image displays at the Alice Springs and Katherine public libraries, which are a great way to engage locals in what parks in the region are about, challenging them with, ‘Where will you go next?’
With regard to Top End events, in Darwin City Centre community engagement manager Michael Barrett ran daily crocodile close encounters. A juvenile saltwater and freshwater crocodile were part of the encounter, giving people the opportunity to handle them. I was lucky enough to get there to support the community engagement program, with the opportunity to talk to the community about Parks Week 2015 and handle a juvenile crocodile.
The location was ideal for passing visitors and locals to talk about the dangers of saltwater crocodiles. This proved to be an effective way of talking to many people face-to-face. Quite a few locals left the display with a better awareness of the dangers of their current behaviours, especially when fishing.
Due to the success of these encounters we will be looking to incorporate these events regularly into the Be CROCWISE safety awareness campaign in the future.
Rockpool Rambling, held on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, was a great way for locals in Darwin to engage with local experts from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. Dr Richard Willan amazed each group with his wide knowledge of not only the marine aspects of the rock pools, but also the whole Casuarina Coastal Reserve.
The Litchfield Hike went very well under some fairly trying conditions. The walkers were astonished at some of the off-track locations in Litchfield National Park, especially a cascading waterfall where the group enjoyed a swim. Discovering Wet Season wildflowers was another highlight for many of the walkers who had never walked off marked tracks before. Litchfield ranger, Sean Webster, led the group and Michael Barrett from the community engagement team supported at the back to ensure everyone stayed together. Feedback received from the Parks and Wildlife Facebook page sums up the experience well:
- Michael and Sean, thanks for a life-changing experience today. Well done on a fantastic walk. We definitely will be keen to do more.
The Exercise and Explore activity saw 80 runners and walkers of all ages, from four years to over 50, participate in a training run with the Alice Springs Running and Walking Club. The event used the tracks and trails of the Alice Springs Telegraph Station and was a fantastic activity to show the incredible recreation in our parks and reserves.
What Goes Bump in the Night included spotlight walks at Tennant Creek and Alice Springs Telegraph Stations. I do know if the member for Barkly went along, but it was a great activity. There were after-dark experiences guided by local rangers, Jarrod Benton and Mark Anderson. Euros, wallabies, geckos, lizards and all kinds of weird and wonderful insects were seen on these night walks. Being out under the night sky was highly rated by participants.
Parks Week in Katherine got off to a huge start with people aged from six to 66 on a waterfall wandering track. I walked out to the Northern Rockhole with rangers Sarah Franks and Clare Pearce. The waterfall always looks wonderful at this time of year and is normally closed for swimming until later in the year. However due to the short Wet Season, Nitmiluk National Park rangers were able to carry out saltwater crocodile management procedures in the area and participants were able to swim. Nitmiluk Tours has been a valued supporter of Parks Week once again, giving people free ferry trips across the river. Visitors were able to meet the owner of the rock hole, a young Mertens’ water monitor which stayed basking on its rock as people took photos of him showing off.
Wildflower Wandering was a ranger-accompanied hike to Southern Rockhole for a swim. The view from Pat’s Lookout was amazing and people enjoyed a swim. Again, Nitmiluk Tours staff provided a return ferry ride from Southern Rockhole.
I thank all of our supporters of Parks Week, such as local experts like Richard Willan from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, groups like Alice Springs Running and Walking Club, Friends of the Larapinta Trail and businesses like Nitmiluk Tours. Their involvement enhanced the experience of Parks Week and helped to ensure a variety of activities could be offered. My special thanks go to these groups and our amazing and knowledgeable Parks and Wildlife Commission staff for their continued efforts in ensuring a successful Parks Week for 2015.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, around 200 women of the Barkly region celebrated International Women’s Day in Tennant Creek on Sunday 8 March 2015. The theme for this year’s celebration was Connecting the Generations – Make it Happen. This year’s event was held at Nyinkka Nyunyu, Tennant Creek’s prestigious culture centre, where a photographic exhibition focusing on the importance of mentoring was held in its gallery.
Barb Shawn, President of the Barkly Regional Council said this exhibition was a unique celebration of the women of the Barkly region who have inspired, enriched and contributed to the community.
A 16-year-old courageous young woman called Tshanka Story, who is a member of the Stronger Sisters in Tennant Creek, stole the show by delivering an inspiring heart-stopping speech. The atmosphere at the breakfast was so moving no one had a dry eye, including me. This young woman is a perfect example of an inspirational up-and-coming community leader. I take this opportunity to read her speech:
- Good morning and thank you all for making an effort this morning to be down here participating and getting involved with the International Women’s Day breakfast.
I, Tshanka Nakkamara Story, 16 years of age, play the role of being a Warramungu Kirridji. I speak upon the country of my grandmother and her ancestors, who walked the face of this Earth many years ago giving spiritual songs to the land, dirt, nature and waterways we meet upon today.
I have been offered personally a chance to state my honest beliefs and opinions that come under the topic of Connecting our Generations. I apologise for any negative words or any of the weaknesses within speaking here this morning. What I am about to talk about has nothing to do with anyone else’s opinions. Therefore these are my own beliefs and I just want to get them out there and give you a bit of an idea and understanding of where I am coming from: a young lady who fits in with our young society and community from the bad and the good.
Well, I highly believe that an appeal should be made for women’s wisdom to be shared once more across a variety of female age groups, to continue passing down the generation of skills and knowledge. Where are you elders and women teaching us younger ladies and girls about cultural aspects, taking responsibilities, or things like emotional and financial capabilities? We are the face of the Earth; we are the mothers of nature, we should be the ones playing a big role in leading this community. You ladies and women are the ones who can get inspiration out there to both female and male genders in this community of Tennant Creek.
I am a person who loves learning and being taught new things. I am amongst a group of ladies who have a pride in themselves because it really does help you lift your head and feel the weight loosed up from your shoulders. But we’re not perfect and we are all having struggles.
Now I really think that Tennant Creek’s Stronger Sisters need a group of you older and elderly ladies to come in and deeply engage with our group because I am only 16 years of age and already I can see that a majority of high school-aged female students that aren’t any much younger than I am don’t have any interest in their lives. Now I also know that a lot of these girls refuse to learn about self-development because they don’t realise they need this and they think that they can put it over you. But deep down inside you older women here know for a fact that there has to be something done or a solution found soon.
No matter how much these girls don’t want to participate, they have to be pushed. Keep them looking forward to these community activities and events and participating in learning new things. These kids need to realise that just because they come from a community like Tennant Creek doesn’t mean they can’t have a go at succeeding. Also, without these education opportunities and role models from their own community young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students may often not realise the possibilities available to them. These kids need to be shown how to face these difficult challenges in life so they can learn by their mistakes, try again and be prepared for the upcoming later in life.
What are you motherly women doing at home with these children and kids? Are you being a role model at home? Are you teaching your kids about rules and boundaries? Are you checking on whether they attend school? Are you giving them the opportunity to enjoy their childhoods and giving them advice and guidance on not growing up in a hurry? I think that a majority of these youth and school students may need to hear some of the stories from you women, if you don’t mind sharing. For example, about making or surviving it through tough times; or not enjoying your teen years because you became a parent at the age of 16 or 17; or missing a good opportunity because you thought you knew what you were doing with your life. You’ve made mistakes, learnt lessons and sacrificed your own choices along your journey. That’s valuable wisdom.
Where is the respect between the families and the community, about making the right decisions or better choices? This wisdom is a part of your family, history, your culture; it’s a part of you and it’s your identity. There are valuable skills, knowledge and surviving stories that only exist in this relationship between families and the community that are important to preserve. We can preserve them by sharing them by a strong group of females passing them down through generations. We females need this type of survival information. It will help us learn to support and live our individual lives.
We need to ask these kids and teenagers, what does respect mean to you? To me, respect is basic little things like talking appropriately in the right place at the right time; having manners and speaking politely; listening to our elderly people and the person speaking in front of you; sharing; being mindful of others and their property; caring for one another; playing sports and socialising equally and fairly. These behaviours can help these kids feel and think positively about themselves, most likely after they have been appreciated or thanked for acceptable behaviour. Being acknowledged can help students and youth in our community by boosting our self-esteem and confidence to reach our full potential and slowly succeed in our own personal development. It can encourage us to be our own individual person, to not be pressured into doing bad things and refusing to take action but instead, being a leader in our group, and making the right decisions particularly for the people we care about and ourselves.
Now I know that the Tennant Creek High School the boys have Clontarf and the girls have Stronger Sisters. I know that it isn’t your responsibility for these students to be under your care after school hours and what happens at home is not these teachers or school staff’s concern. But teachers can help these kids who come from broken homes by trying to understand them and make them feel welcome to talk about it. They should not be judged for their background but maybe you should try and put a bit more effort into engaging with these kids and families to help them develop physically and mentally in the classroom, around the community and for themselves. We need to help these kids to look beyond the low expectations in their families and reach their full potential.
Now there’s a men’s home for the men and a women’s shelter for the mothers and kids, and ladies. I’m not sure if the Blue House programs for male and female youth are still running but if so how are your staff managing these programs to improve them? Basically, what I am trying to ask is are there any available youth houses for young people to get accommodation, food, a bit of counselling and courses to help them through the negativity in their lives? Counselling sessions for these particular youths to find out about their individual thoughts on their lives and positive and negative things they’ve been through to help them release weight from their shoulders. It’s important to talk about the real world and life in our society, and what depression and anxiety could do to them. Eighty-seven percent of youth and teenage school students suffer from the impact of mental illness but coming from a community, they don’t even know that what they’re going through has a name and a way out.
I hope that we have more of these women’s breakfasts because I’d love to talk more about your opinions and others in the room. I have had a busy week and this is all I have come up with at the moment. Thank you.
That was an incredible speech that got the attention of the 200 participants in International Women’s Day in 2015 in Tennant Creek and the Barkly region.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk on another one of the schools in my electorate. I spoke last night on Bees Creek Primary School. Humpty Doo Primary School is a very good school with a very solid reputation for doing good things for the many students – 415 students, give or take – and the teachers and staff members who make that school the success it is. I offer my congratulations to the Principal, Susanne Fisher, Deputy Principal Geoff Gillman, Petrina Shields the Administration Office Manager, and Marina Banks who is the Administration Officer and the many other teaching staff, special staff and caretaking staff who look after the grounds. It is a pretty school, although an old school in need of upgrades, as I have said before in this parliament. The council of Humpty Doo Primary School is continuing to plan, fundraise and talk with the department as to how they can improve the facilities.
The school values are solid and sensible and they try to instil them into the students: responsibility, respect, honesty, inclusion and personal best. This is what all of us want from our children and parents, families and schools would want from their students.
I want to place on the record tonight my congratulations to the house captains and the vice captains who have recently been inducted. I went to the ceremony last week. I have attended before. I help them take their oath of office and their commitment to serve their school community. The house captains for this year are for Kapalga are Liam Thornley and Abby Smith and the vice captains are Kane Scragg and Jade Archer. For Woolwonga, the captains are Bradley Curriez and Stephanie Johnson, and vice captains are Liam Thorpe-Roots and Pim Einam. For Marrakai the captains are Timothy Kennion and Tiah Young and Tejay Fraser and Brooke Deegan are vice captains. For Burrundi, the captains are Tony Lam and Jessica Brown, and Alex Kawai and Chelsea Bias are vice captains.
As with all schools and student councils I know these students will play a leadership role across the school, not only encouraging the younger students, helping them where they can and guiding and assisting them, but trying to support teachers in what they do in regard to the school, the grounds, the classrooms and other staff.
They will help with family or friends on special occasions such as Anzac Day which is coming up. Jump Rope is coming up, and I know these student selected by their peers will also try to do their best to make people feel welcome and accommodated at Humpty Doo Primary School.
It is a good school. I enjoy going there whether it be to assemblies or just to pop in and say hello when I am in the neighbourhood. I say thank you to Humpty Doo Primary School for providing the good service you do to the school community of the rural area.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, tonight I will talk about some schools in my electorate, some students who have become student leaders and leadership criteria at different schools.
First, Moulden Park Primary School is a unique school. The leadership at that school, under Ms Wendy Jordan, is hard working and innovative. They work towards improving the attendance rate of at-risk students by trying new things. I enjoy their assemblies; they have an excellent school spirit. I particularly enjoy their school song.
The future is in their hands, as their song goes. It was my pleasure to sign off on the student leaders in the school this year at an assembly where the military units were also presented to houses. They had a pledge to sign that they would lead with integrity and commitment. I am very proud to announce these leaders tonight in parliament.
The house captain for Brolga House is Elizabeth Richardson-Eveleigh, for Jabiru House Mitchel Brauer, for Jacana House Shannon Graham, and for Corella House Marlon Fejo. The vice captain for Brolga is Jamie Burke, for Jabiru Stephanie Kingsbury, for Jacana Raymond Murakami, and for Corella Djuarn Taylor. The class representatives for the school are as follows: Jasmine Clara, Jonathan Blackwood, Tekiah Randall-Tambling, Taylah Bohlin, Holly Edwards and Katherine Lemon.
I wish all these leaders the very best and may they lead their school with pride and use this opportunity to develop their leadership skills.
Rosebery Primary School is a great school. The school has not been open for many years but has established a fantastic reputation in Palmerston as an excellent school under the able leadership of Ms Gail Smith. It is growing this year with the construction of the new preschool facilities that will double the size of the preschool. This is sorely needed in the area as they have full classes and waiting lists in most year levels.
It was my pleasure recently to act as the returning officer for the school council.
The new 2015 school council members are: chair, Leonie Hastie-Gorgde; secretary, Kylie Gibbons; treasurer, Marnie Richards; principal, Gail Smith; preschool parent representative, Fiona Woolley; parent representatives, Alicia Balantyne, Lisa Sharp, Simon Hales, Robyn Smith, Ella MaGuire and Sue Lowry; and teacher representatives, Shona Henderson, Danielle Banicek, Karen Jeffrey, Carly Moir and Michele Sheahan. I wish them all the best this year as they lead the school with principal Gail Smith.
The school council members who left this year were chair Meredith Sullivan, parent rep, Kim Jackson and staff rep, Rob Dunbar. All other members were either continuing or re-elected and I very much thank those volunteers for the time and skills they committed last year to the development of the school and we all wish them the best in the future.
It was my pleasure to visit Rosebery Primary School again recently to present the Northern Territory flag and some plaques representing units that served in the Northern Territory during World War II.
The school had held elections and I got to meet the new house captains for the school. The captains this year are as follows. The captains for Balli House are Zac Borrelli and Hayley Bilby; for Wamba, Zane Jeggo and Anahera August-Unuia; for Menida, James Foreman and Tahlia Curran; and for Marnba, Jin In Modequillo and Terangiweera Edmonds. The vice captains for Balli are Noah Harris and Cielo Garcia; for Wamba, Isaac Bann and Jessi Stewart; for Menida, Dean Stringer and Kayla Araujo; and for Marnba, Lachlan Martin and Sarah Morgan.
I wish these students all the best as they lead their student community this year, and I hope they take advantage of this opportunity to develop their leadership skills.
I also congratulate the student representatives from Woodroffe Primary School, which is a wonderful school ably led by Ms Sharon Reeves in a time of change for the Woodroffe community.
The Pandanus Unit at the school does a great job working with students who have learning difficulties and need specialised attention.
The school is forward looking and has a good school council that is ready for challenges. I note their eagerness working towards the independent public schools model, and I expect they will continue to be a standout school in the greater Darwin area.
The student leaders are as follows. The student representative council members are Lara Dyson, Kasey Marsden, Kane Cartwright, Jaimee Osgood, Jayde Schaftenaar and Chace Lothian.
Of special note was the Australia Day Citizen award winner, Jagar Cockatoo, who earned this by good leadership and doing fantastic things in his school community. I remember being at the presentation when he received this award; the list of the fantastic things this student had done went on and on.
In the sport houses, the captains for Leichhardt are Kiara Craig and Beau Lothian, and the vice captains are Grace Chompoonut and Hayden Russell. For Gregory, the captains are Kho Annette Mearns and Archer Bryett, and the vice captains were Lilly Evans and Rohan Dale. For Goyder, the captains were Paige Horrigan and Liam Gardner, and the vice captains were Taqwaizya Barbour and Xavier Walsh-Evans.
I wish these students all the best as they lead the student community this year and hope they take advantage of this opportunity to develop their leadership skills.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016