2011-08-09
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Wagaman Primary School students accompanied by Ms Marilyn van den Elzen and Ms Gaylene Russ. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 5 May 2011.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, in the short time I have had to get my head around this legislation I have found it to be an interesting contribution to the laws of the Northern Territory. In some ways, reading through this presented me with a conundrum in that it is a good thing to keep people out of gaol as much as you possibly can. Unfortunately, this legislation takes a top-down approach instead of a bottom-up approach. This is, effectively, providing a soft option for bailees and parolees and people who are sentenced prisoners, and is not the answer to the law and order problems currently faced in the Northern Territory. It is a top-down approach because this government has lost control of crime and incarceration rates. It seeks to reduce the number of people in prison by providing those soft options rather than deal with the root causes of crime and offending in the Northern Territory. That is the conundrum presented to me because clearly we have too many people in our prison system.
We have known for a long time Indigenous people are way over represented in the Corrections and Justice systems in the Northern Territory. One must look at the reasons why offenders are imprisoned; how they come to be there. Once you have analysed that, and it is not too hard to do, you must then find a way to deal with the bottom-up approach to offending in the Northern Territory. I will have more to say on the details of that shortly.
However, to look at one aspect, everyone in this House is aware - government members opposite speak about it regularly, too – that alcohol contributes to our crime rate in the Northern Territory in a very significant way. I heard the Chief Minister say 60% of violent crime can be attributed to alcohol. Unless you are prepared to take a tough approach to alcohol you will clearly be putting yourself right behind the eight ball when it comes to dealing with the flow-on effects from alcohol abuse - crime. The government touts its current tough-on-grog laws as being the toughest in the country. Yes. Will they be effective? No. As I mentioned last night in my adjournment debate, we have seen the alcohol laws introduced by this government and rolled out in some communities in the Northern Territory clearly not work. What makes the government think the same type of regime will work in Darwin and other parts of the Territory is beyond me ...
Mr Bohlin: The indication is it is insanity.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right; it is an indication of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
In the absence of any new ideas on how to deal with crime rates in the Northern Territory, alcohol-related crime, recidivism, what the government does is take a typically Labor soft-on-crime approach. This is a soft measure, unlike the Country Liberals’ approach to this, which would deal with the root causes of crime in …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: … the Northern Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex! Minister for Business!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The measures in this legislation have the very high potential to remove a significant part of the deterrent factor in the minds of people who commit crimes. They will be thinking: ‘Instead of going to gaol I have a better chance of being at home. If I am on bail, that will mean I will not have to be in custody, I will not be on remand; I will be able to go home, albeit with conditions’. Those conditions exist now; you can get bail.
In the case of bail particularly, the practical application of the decision by magistrates and judges whether to grant bail goes to their assessment of a number of factors. One of those factors would be whether they believe a person they give bail to would comply with conditions placed upon them. Those considerations by judges and magistrates are a balancing act weighed against other factors in determining bail such as the protection of the community which this legislation does not seem to consider at all. One of the most important factors in dealing with crime and how offenders are dealt with - whether they be at the bail stage, the sentencing stage or the parole stage - is the protection of the community. The magistrates and judges will make an assessment on that. The potential is, because they now have another option to allow people to go free, more people will walk free on bail when, in other circumstances, the weight of protection of the community would mean they would ordinarily stay in custody. That concerns me ...
Mr Giles: Soft on crime!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Absolutely. The government is soft on crime. The minister will argue we already have all these things in place and this adds to …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting! Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The minister will argue we already have a regime in place for bail, parole and sentencing, and these will only augment or add to the range of options judges and magistrates have. The nett effect of that will mean more people will be out of gaol on bail. They will be out of gaol on softer sentences. They will be out of gaol because parole boards will look at this legislation and figure they have better options of ensuring people comply with conditions. We know the nett effect will be more people out of gaol because this is the only answer the government has to dealing with the rates of incarceration in the Northern Territory. If there was a raft of measures being introduced alongside this which meant there would be a real impact on the root causes of offending in the Northern Territory my arguments would be spurious; however, there are none. The government has no answer other than to go soft on crime.
This legislation was introduced earlier this year. It has a staggered commencement date with the provision to introduce community based orders and community custody orders commencing on a fixed date after the Administrator sets that date, and the remainder to commence on assent.
The purpose of this bill is to reduce the number of prisoners on remand and the number of inmates in Territory gaols. I will say it again: this government has not been able to figure out how to deal with incarceration rates and the rising crime rate in the Northern Territory. It has lost the battle and has come to a point where it asks: ‘How do we keep people out of gaol?’ Let us go soft on them’. I am quite astounded. The more I read this legislation I thought about the difficulties it will present to the good folk of the Northern Territory because those people who would ordinarily be in gaol no longer will be.
This bill amends a number of acts, those being the Bail Act and regulations, the Parole of Prisoners Act, the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, the Sentencing Act, the Motor Vehicles Act which is another point of great concern, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the Youth Justice Act and the Supreme Court Rules.
In going through some parts of the legislation, section 27A is about conduct agreements. Currently, the section covers conduct that may be prohibited or required by an accused person if the conduct agreement is entered into. This is under the Bail Act. Under the amendments to this section, the court may grant bail, require the accused person, other than a person before the Youth Justice Court, to wear a monitoring device and have other equipment installed in their home to assist with the operation of the monitoring device. It also allows the court to require the accused person to give a sample of their voice for use with voice recognition devices and have other equipment installed in their home to assist with that equipment. This, potentially, has the effect, as I pointed out, of allowing the court to grant bail to offenders where that bail would otherwise be denied. I raise concerns about how this will be balanced against the principle of protecting the community from offenders who would ordinarily be kept in custody on bail.
There is a new section 27B: Monitoring compliance with certain conduct agreements. This allows a person on bail to be monitored by electronic means, and it allows the court to impose necessary conditions that allow the accused person to enter into a conduct agreement and use monitoring devices or a voice recognition system if the court is satisfied, on a recommendation from the Director of Correctional Services, the accused person is suitable. I want to point to the words ‘on the recommendation of the Director of Correctional Services’. This will necessarily mean more work for Corrections staff. They will have to assess more people for these orders if the magistrates and judges, and I am sure they will, choose to grant bail and give these orders under this section. Currently, a bail assessment takes somewhere between three to five days depending on the location in which it is being done. I am unsure what the staffing is in Katherine, Tennant Creek, or Alice Springs, but staff at those locations within Corrections are already stretched and this will simply add to their workload. I have concerns about that in light of the fact this government continues, unabated, in its work to reduce the number of public servants working in a range of departments in regional parts of the Northern Territory.
I see, and I am going to pick up on, the raised eyebrow from the Attorney-General. Attorney-General, let me ask you when and if you are going to replace the two WorkSafe officers who retired from Katherine? The office has been closed for the last four months?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The positions were advertised.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: There is no point of order, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms Lawrie: You asked the question and you got the answer.
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: There are minor amendments to the Bail Act, but moving on to the Parole of Prisoners Act. There are no provisions under the current act for monitoring compliance for those parole orders and the new section 4 of the Parole of Prisoners Act will extend the provisions of Part 27, Division 1 of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act to the person on parole and subject them to monitoring conditions, such as the monitoring device or voice recognition system. Currently, the section allows for the parole board to release a prisoner on parole if they have served the minimum term of imprisonment as provided by this or the Sentencing Act, and conditions relating to the parole order are also determined by this section.
Under the amendment the person, unless they are found guilty by a youth justice court, may be released on parole subject to the condition that they reside at a specific place and be subject to monitoring conditions, such as a monitoring device or voice recognition system. I point to the effect this may have on parole boards deciding whether a person could or should be released on parole. It is my view, and the view of a number of people I have spoken to, that this will put more prisoners back on the street on parole. I have no doubt it will affect decisions of the parole board as it goes through its determinations.
There are minor amendments to the Parole of Prisoners Act and the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. There is a new section 94B which deals with the appointment of surveillance officers; a new section 49BA, Approval of monitoring device and voice recognition system; and a new section 94C, Monitoring compliance with the monitoring order. Currently under the act, 94B dealing with surveillance officers, covers the appointment and powers available to a surveillance officer. The appointed person may or may not be a parole officer. Section 94C deals with breath and blood analyses and tests and allows a surveillance officer the ability to direct a person on a parole or home detention order to undergo a breath analysis for alcohol content.
The amendment repeals sections 94B and 94C and replaces them with a single provision. The new 94B gives the director the power to appoint a surveillance officer. This person need not be a probation officer and can be in a paid or unpaid capacity. I do not know if we will end up in committee over this; however, I would like to know how an unpaid surveillance officer works? What is the mechanism around having an unpaid surveillance officer? Are they neighbourhood watch, are they volunteers, are they off duty police officers, are they teachers in remote communities, or people who are seconded to do a job free of charge? Will they be covered by insurance, workers compensation and those types of things? Do they have any powers? If so, what are they? There are quite a few questions about unpaid staff and I am interested to see how they plan to pull that together.
There are other amendments to the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act and also some amendments to the Sentencing Act. Currently, section 5(2)(k) states in sentencing that the court must have regard to any time spent in custody prior to sentencing. Under the amendment, the current provisions of section 5(2)(k) have been expanded to clarify time in custody can include time spent on bail subject to a conduct agreement and include the use of a monitoring device. The practical application of that is if you are going to be sentenced for an offence the judge can take into consideration the amount of time you have already spent in custody. This section expands, reinforces and brings about some clarity in the use of the conduct agreement and monitoring devices.
Section 7, Sentencing and other orders, currently outlines the sentencing orders available to the court on the conviction of the offender. The amendment expands the current section to include the ability for a court to make a sentencing order that includes a community based order either with or without conviction, or a community custody order with a conviction. Effectively, that means this amendment offers the community custody order as an alternative to a term of imprisonment.
In isolation, finding innovative ways to keep prisoners out of gaol is not necessarily a bad thing; however, it must be weighed against the good of the community, the protection of the community, and must be weighed against all the other considerations around sentencing. For legislation like this to come before the House as the means by which this government intends to deal with incarceration rates, to me, just beggars belief.
Mr Conlan: It is out of answers.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It has no other solutions; it has lost control of crime in the NT. One only has to look down the track to see how crime and crime rates are affecting our small towns. Look at Alice Springs, for example …
Mr Conlan: Where is that?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is north and South Australia. They consider themselves to be part of South Australia under this government.
Let us look at Alice Springs and the unbelievable problem with crime. If anywhere exemplifies the loss of control this government has over crime and law and order, Alice Springs is the case. It was not so long ago I spoke to a fellow who was visiting there - a cattleman who was in Alice Springs who was walking along the road near the Melanka site …
Mr Giles: Gap Road.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Gap Road, thank you. … minding his own business when he was bumped into from behind by two Aboriginal fellows. He turned around and they said: ‘Have you got a smoke, mate?’ He looked at the other six people standing behind them all aggressive and ready to have a go at him. He was a pretty quick thinker and talked himself out of it. However, I tell you, a cattleman of that man’s stature - he is a big fellow - was worried about his personal safety. How many incidents like that have been happening in Alice Springs because this government has lost control of crime in Alice Springs?
In Katherine, over the last two years, assaults have risen 40%. This government’s answer to the rising crime rate in the Northern Territory is to have softer bail, softer sentencing, softer parole, and: ‘Let us get these buggers back out on the street’.
How are the people of Alice Springs going to feel when they have people released, under the auspices of this legislation, onto the streets to continue reoffending? How are they going to feel? That is replicated right across the Northern Territory.
There is much to this legislation; it talks about community orders, custody orders, work orders, all types of things, and goes into the Motor Vehicles Act. This is a topic the member for Port Darwin is particularly interested in and I am not going to steal his thunder. He is quite keen to speak about it.
This legislation is a lame response to incarceration rates in the Northern Territory. This government must deal with the root causes of crime. You cannot go soft. You cannot keep softening the system to suit your own political statistical agenda. I daresay the government has drummed this one up because it was not that long ago the Country Liberals pointed out when it builds the new prison at Weddell, it would be full, given the current incarceration rates, by 2013 or 2014. The government is going to spend around $300m on a new prison only to have it full the moment the ribbon is cut. That is pretty good. That is $300m of taxpayers’ money …
A member: Good if it is a hotel.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right. It is good to have 100% occupancy for a hotel but not good to have 100% occupancy in a prison, especially on the day the ribbon is cut!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: What the minister dresses up as the new era in Corrections is really a softening to suit the government’s own political and statistical agenda because it has no other solutions. I said this last night. It is a government bereft of new ideas and you can plainly see that. There is nothing new from the government. ‘Oh, look, we have tried this; we will draw up some statistics to say it looks like it worked okay and then we will introduce it across the Territory’. I do not know what is going on over there. Tired? Maybe they have their mind on other things, like the child protection failures. Retirement? Who is going to stay and who will go?
In isolation, softening the regime around bail, sentencing and parole is not going to be the answer to the burning question in the minds of Territorians which is: how are you going to reduce crime? That is the burning question. How is this government going to reduce crime? It is not going to reduce crime by allowing more prisoners back onto the street. In some respects, the government has to go down this path. Weddell will be full. Currently, prisoners who are sentenced, I am led to believe, are being released early to make room for new prisoners under this government’s failed law and order policies. What about the phone calls I suspect are made from courts each day to the prison to see how many beds are free: ‘Oh, only two today’. That is the reason the government has to introduce this legislation, to deal not with crime rates but the perception that this government will have fewer people in gaol. It will find a statistical measure that makes this look like it is the be-all and end-all. ‘Look at us; we have reduced incarceration rates in the Northern Territory’. Perhaps the government might find statistics to say it has reduced recidivism rates. Both those things are linked.
Madam Speaker, as this legislation is being introduced to reduce numbers – it is not about reducing crime in the Northern Territory - Territorians should be expecting far more and should be receiving far more by way of solutions from this government.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation and thank the minister for having a vision for low-security prisoners rather than putting up the brick wall and locking people away. We know the justice system is a revolving door; we continually lock people up. This legislation is not going to put rapists and murderers into the public. It is looking at small crimes, such as offences for drink-driving, alcohol-related issues, and it is about giving these people opportunities to put something back into their communities so their community can see what they have done; they are rewarding the community. It is a fantastic vision; a vision which allows a process where people can come back into the community and see, with the wrongs they have done, how they can pay back the community and reward the community for the things they have done.
Member for Port Darwin, it is not just about building walls. If you want to imprison everyone, we will need more than a new Weddell. We can take up the whole of the Northern Territory and keep on building prisons. It is about paying back the community for the small crime committed so people can see the rewards and benefits. At the moment, through the justice system we have prisoners cleaning the communities - we see it all the time in Alice Springs. We see prisoners walking down the creeks, picking up the rubbish, mowing and using the whipper snipper where people live up in the hills. Where I live in Lyndavale, they are always using the whipper snipper to make it safe for people who live in that area so there are no snakes and no rubbish accumulating. You can see in Alice Springs, in the Todd River, what the low ranking prisoners do to our town.
This legislation is saying we cannot continually put these people in prison. You can keep building walls and you can keep putting these people behind those walls; however, is that going to teach them anything? No! All it teaches them is to reoffend. How many times have we seen the same people come back through the revolving door of justice after committing the same crime? This allows those people to pay back to the community for the injustice they have done.
I cannot see anywhere in the minister’s second reading speech or the explanatory statement any mention of allowing rapists and murderers to go back into society. What we have to do is not frighten people. People will ask, if the CLP gains power at the next election, will it be building bigger and bigger gaols to house everyone in the Northern Territory, and the population of 99.9% of Indigenous presently incarcerated might go up to 150%. Do we really want to see that?
It is okay to put rapists and murderers in prison; they deserve to be there. The government is not saying these people should be released into the public. These are people on motor vehicle charges, drink-driving, and reoffending in the same area all the time.
I have had firsthand experience with this; my nieces and nephews continually do this. I had my sister front up to court several months ago and the magistrate put her on an order where she had to give back to the community. She had a choice of going to gaol or to look after the cats and dogs at the RSPCA. She chose to look after the dogs and cats at the RSPCA because she was embarrassed. When I spoke to my other sister from Hermannsburg, it was really funny because she said every time she calls her sister all you can hear is ‘woof, woof’ and ‘meow, meow’. She is doing 70 hours for the public and paying back for her wrong in a place where she also learns, because she would not have known anything about caring for cats and dogs – feeding them, walking them, cleaning them. That is an education strategy in itself and where we have to move to. We cannot continually be locking people up. That is my contribution to this legislation, minister.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell for preempting what I was going to say; however, I want to reassure her I do not for one second suggest this is going to lead to the release of murderers and rapists. Why? Because the minister specifically excludes that group of people from this process. However, let us look at what this legislation is attempting to do in the general, before we reduce to the specific. When I say the general, let us talk about what government has been doing over the past 10 years since coming to power. It has a mandate to govern in accordance with the philosophy it maintains. Good, that is what it has been doing.
An example of the legislation the government introduced very early in the period of governance consistent with that philosophical approach is the alcohol courts. The alcohol courts are the expression of the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence. The idea is when a person comes before a court and has an alcohol problem, the alcohol court legislation said in circumstances where you would normally go to gaol we are going to give you one last reprieve because you have to deal with your alcohol problem. We think your alcohol problem is the cause of your conduct and if we get that under control you probably will not be a criminal. That was the first dalliance with therapeutic jurisprudence and is consistent with the Labor Party world view on things. The problem was the alcohol court was ineffective, which is why the government ended up repealing the legislation.
The courts, however, taking the lead from the government, created a system of their own called credit courts. No legislative instrument from this House ever created the credit courts; those credit courts were able to operate and remain under existing legislation, particularly the use of the Sentencing Act, and I will come back to that shortly. The government, in repealing the alcohol courts, realised it had pulled up short and has now looked at the model of the credit courts and introduced the SMART Court Act which runs along the same philosophical principles. If we deal with the person’s alcohol or drug problems we will congratulate them. The way that is expressed in the courtroom has caused magistrates, particularly more conservative ones, some cause for concern.
This manifests itself in a courtroom by almost fawning congratulations on a person when they do nothing more than take on personal responsibilities and try to deal with their alcohol and drug problem. It is almost like a tickertape parade and the courtroom has to be thrust forward congratulating the person for becoming responsible.
Is that what our court system has come to? Is that what we need? The therapeutic jurisprudence background is strong in our current Chief Stipendiary Magistrate; is it is where she cut her teeth. The Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, being a great believer in these ideas, has come to a jurisdiction where these ideas are embraced. The interesting component is the credit courts, when they operated, very much like the SMART courts do now, did so without a legislative construct surrounding them - that is not entirely true - did so without a specific legislative instrument creating them. There was sufficient latitude in the capacity of the courts granted by this parliament in existing legislation, for example the Sentencing Act. This issue arose when I was having a briefing on this legislative instrument.
There are three components I am concerned about when it comes to this legislative instrument and I will deal with each of them. The first is the community custody orders and the second is the community based orders. I do not want to go into the minutia of section numbers, etcetera. Let us just talk about the general concept of how a community custody order is supposed to work.
A community custody order is, essentially, a prisoner in their own home. This means, through the joy of modern technology, you can put bracelets on people and a person is sentenced to prison but can serve that under this proposed legislation within their own home. We used to have home detention orders with that type of thing. A bracelet goes on the ankle and if they leave the confines of the home the bracelet sends off a signal, and everyone knows they have been particularly naughty and breached the terms of their custody. We are saying: ‘You are not coming into the prison system per se, but you are still a prisoner in your own home’. Aung San Suu Kyi would be familiar with that concept.
That takes us to community based orders. Community based orders are slightly different. They are, in a sense, a form of non-imprisonment. These are orders where people are released from the courts upon conviction for the more minor forms of offences - but they still can be quite serious - and these people do things which are required of them by the courts in the community - whatever those things may be. During the briefing on this issue I asked: ‘If the court, under the current sentencing legislation of the Northern Territory’ - and dare I say other jurisdictions – ‘has a latitude which ranges from not even recording a conviction against a guilty person to putting a person in gaol, it is within the ambit of the Sentencing Act right now to place orders in place which capture everything from essential release without penalty all the way to incarceration’? The answer I received during the briefing was: ‘Yes, that is correct’. My next question was: ‘What is different about this?’ What I got was a stony silence which lasted about 10 seconds.
Essentially, there is nothing new in this legislative instrument. Yes, it might tweak a few things about putting bracelets on villains and whatever else; however, the government is redressing powers it already has. Where those powers should have been used in the past, if this government was going to pursue its policy line - and I pick up on the member for Macdonnell saying: ‘Do not put these people in prison’. That is fine. It is a matter of policy that you seek sentences under the existing legislation which do not put these people in prison. However, do not come into this House with a charade piece of legislation saying you have a new system when, in fact, you are introducing nothing more than what exists in current legislation, possibly with minor tweaks around the edges. That is all.
This government is so hell-bent on presenting itself as having new ideas and new policies it forgot the legislation it introduces often repeats and reconstructs existing legislation from this House. The alcohol court, credit court, SMART Court processes could not be a clearer demonstration of this truism. The Credit Court which, effectively - with a few minor differences - was reproduced in the SMART Court, did not have a legislative base specifically in a credit court act. This legislation is window dressing government policy failures up until this date.
The member for Macdonnell said it would be good to see these prisoners back in the community. She went on to describe how many of these prisoners are in the community - because they already can; it is how the system already works. We are dressing this up as the new era in Corrections when, in fact, it is the old era in Corrections with a new set of drapes, maybe a little window dressing, and a couple of flowers. The powers mentioned in this legislative instrument, essentially, already exist. Why have they not been used? Because government has not put the policies in place to make these legislative instruments work the way they can. Rather than admit to a policy failure in the past, the government says: ‘We have this round thing with an axle through the middle; it is called a wheel and we are reinventing it especially for the occasion’.
Why does the government remain surprised that people of the Northern Territory are losing faith when it continually does this type of thing? Media release after media release about being tough on crime, a new era in Corrections, it is going to focus on this, etcetera, when the media releases themselves do not reflect what is in the legislation. On the occasions they do they are just bits of paper, and people are becoming sick and tired of having the same thing dressed up again and again and presented as something new. A burnt sausage is a burnt sausage is a burnt sausage.
I will not be supporting this legislation. It does not add anything of any consequence to the legislative structures which currently exist in the Northern Territory, and it should be incumbent on this government to use the existing structures. If it has not used the existing structures until now, why should I have any faith, why should this House have any faith, that it is going to do any better with new structures.
An example, I asked a question on the prison system during estimates: ‘You are talking about doing all these courses?’ ‘Yes, we have 600 prisoners starting courses’. I said: ‘That is great news. How many finished?’ The answer was: ‘Three’.
It is not about legislative instruments and a new era in Corrections. It is about the capacity of government to deliver. That is on trial in this House on almost every occasion government introduces a bill like this.
What is new in this bill concerns me. It relates to matters of drink-driving, and traffic offenders are essentially what this bill is targeted at. Whilst I appreciate the bill will not release sexual offenders, murderers or paedophiles, if we talk about murder, substantially more people are killed on our streets in this jurisdiction than are murdered. We are still talking about things which are fundamentally serious. Many motor vehicle accidents which lead to death are the product of people driving drunk. When I was the member for Macdonnell shortly before the 2005 election - it would have been about 2003 - I went to a triple fatal about 50 km from the Kintore community which included the death of a baby. If memory serves me, the driver was intoxicated and there were other people in the car also intoxicated who distracted the driver. Whilst these are not the most serious offences for which you can be charged, the consequences which flow from committing these offences are, nevertheless, serious. On occasion, they are literally matters of life or death.
The parliament of this jurisdiction has determined a person has demonstrated a lack of responsibility because they jump into a car whilst drunk - this parliament has long held, government after government, term after term, that people who abuse the privilege of a driver’s licence will have that licence disqualified and taken away from them. This legislative instrument seeks to overturn that long-standing principle. This legislation says if you a traffic offender or an exceed 0.08%, etcetera, and you find yourself subject to a community custody order or a community based order or a term of imprisonment, we are going to put you through a course to teach you how to drive. Hopefully, part of the message in that course is you should not drive while you are drunk - I am sure that would be the case. As a reward for doing the course, this legislation will say you can have your driver’s licence back, notwithstanding there is a period of disqualification still current on your driver’s licence. That is a cause for concern. It is a watering down of the idea that if you prove yourself unfit to hold a driver’s licence because you engage in irresponsible conduct - drive whilst you are drunk - you should not have that driver’s licence. It also removes the concept which all too often does not find its way into the lexicon of members opposite, the concept of punishment.
It is clear from every driving test I have ever seen that drink-driving is attended to by those people who issue the licence. You have to be able to demonstrate, on any licence test I have ever seen, that you know you are not allowed to drive whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This government is proposing to say: ‘It is too hard to police this. The people who find themselves in gaol for committing these offences go back to their communities and will almost invariably drive again. What do we do?’ This is the argument run in the second reading speech: ‘We will give their driver’s licence back despite the fact there is an existing period of disqualification’. That is surrender. That is capitulation. It is: ‘I give up; it is too hard’.
On those grounds alone, whilst I am tepid on the issue of CCOs and CBOs, I am not tepid on this. If a person has their licence taken off them for committing driving offences because they are a danger to the community in which they live, that person should serve the full period of disqualification as outlined in the traffic and motor vehicle legislation of this House. We should not send a signal that if you are worse than the others and end up in gaol for these offences, not only are we going to give you an option of a CCO or a CBO, we are going to enable you to get your licence back early. This is reward for conduct not acceptable to this side of the House.
Moreover, it reflects the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence being pushed to a new level. It means not only are we going to have a tickertape parade in the courtroom every time you say: ‘My name is Adam and I have not had a drink this week’, we are going to actively reward you and exempt you from punishment for conduct you have engaged in at the peril of the rest of the community. That is not acceptable and, for those reasons, this legislative instrument cannot be supported by the right-minded people of this House. Madam Speaker, I hope some members opposite consider themselves right-minded.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the new shadow for Corrections who does not even know where the new prison facility is to be constructed. It is not Weddell and has not been Weddell for quite some time. You seem to have completely escaped the entire public debate, including public meetings. For your information, the new site is at Holtze. You might want to have a briefing as incoming shadow Corrections minister in relation to that correctional facility. He showed a patent lack of understanding about the significant changes being introduced in the Corrections system as part of the new era in Corrections. He also seemed to have escaped the significant resources and funding being put in to support …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … to support correctional officers with additional staff we, as a government, have recognised the Corrections system will require for these reforms to be effective. They go in tranches of positions across the regions, including important trials into the remote communities.
I take my hat off to the minister for Corrections who, when given the portfolio, embarked on a tour of visiting correctional systems across our nation, understanding the complexities of the incarceration system, both inside and outside the wall. What training and rehabilitative measures do you put in place to break this unacceptable cycle of recidivism we have in the Territory? Why is it unacceptable? Because we do not want taxpayers’ dollars being expended on incarcerating people and when they do their time and leave - no we are not letting them out early; it is not possible to let them out early under the sentencing provisions …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: They cannot handle the truth. The member for Katherine would not know the truth if he tripped over it.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: If he fell over it he would not know the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: He has a significant amount of form.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: A man who leads with his chin. He dodged paying stamp duty. He did some dodgy car deals in Katherine. He is the subject of debate in the public arena in what the Ombudsman’s report found in regard to his behaviour …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I understand why he was sacked as shadow Treasurer. I cannot understand why he was given the shadow Corrections portfolio when he has such a murky past. He has been caught out doing some dodgy car deals and falsifying records, and giving him anything in the Justice portfolio is unbelievable. I guess Terry does not have much choice in things because he has a numbers problem. Here is a tip, member for Katherine, try not to lead with your chin in every debate. That is what you usually do. Do some background, do some research, find out that the new correctional facility is at Holtze not Weddell . Find out within this legislation …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … and I took some notes. The member for Katherine said it the same as existing conditions. Go to the community service orders and the whole model of outside the wall corrections that came about as a result of the great research done by minister McCarthy and the Independent member for Nelson. He has pursued reform of Corrections from the day he came into this Chamber, and we have participated in those debates over the years. We have a dynamic balance between justice - people being brought to account for their deeds - and the balance we all seek, genuine education and rehabilitation so when people have served their sentence they do not reoffend. That is a significant body of work we have brought through public consultation processes and significant announcements in the new era in Corrections.
The feedback from the legal fraternity has been overwhelmingly positive. For people who understand the system of justice in the Territory, they are saying finally a government of the Territory is bold and strong enough to make the significant reforms contained within this legislation today, as well as the resource commitments that will genuinely bring forward a new era in Corrections. I point that out to the opposition because they seem to have completely missed the debate in the new era in Corrections.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: You have to focus on reducing recidivism. I acknowledge the member for Macdonnell went to what she sees are the genuine issues in her community. If you want to break that cycle of crime you have to focus on recidivism. It is way too high in the Territory. Forty eight percent of our offenders are back in gaol within two years compared to the national data, which is sitting at 37%.
Although the shadow spokesperson for Alcohol Policy in the CLP says there is a negligible link between crime and alcohol, this government knows the data is stark - alcohol significantly fuels crime; 60% of all assaults and 67% of all domestic violence incidents in the Territory are co-related. Surveys show 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol.
Alcohol-related harm costs our community $642m per annum in the economic and social impacts of grog, and contributes to death and hospitalisations. Territorians die at three times the national rate attributed to alcohol-related death. That is both road carnage as well as traumas as a result of those unacceptable assault incidents.
That is why the alcohol reforms passed through parliament in a raft of legislation - three bills - and enacted, are complementary to the work being done in the new era in Corrections. The minister can talk more about that. When you look at the emphasis on rehabilitation, and alcohol rehabilitation within the new era of Corrections, additional beds are funded within the rehab treatment system to deal with offenders through the new era in Corrections. The two reforms are complementary and, in combination, may significantly start to turn around the cycle of crime we have seen in the Territory. This government’s view is enough is enough and it is time to make people accountable for their own actions and go directly to the problem drinker rather than society as a whole.
The member for Katherine said there is nothing different in the alcohol reforms, nothing is new, and nothing has changed - that belies belief. It is incredible he has such an attitude. The automatic police bans are no different and nothing has changed? They are significantly different. They are right across the Territory and give police power to ban people from purchasing and consuming alcohol for three months, six months, or 12 months, depending on how many repeat offences they have had. That is brand new; did not exist in Katherine before and did not exist under the alcohol management plan before. It is in place in Katherine today, which is dramatically different to what was in place in Katherine and, indeed, what was in place in Alice Springs previously. I believe the toughest alcohol reforms in the nation are turning those problem drinkers off tap and the mechanisms we have in there are complementary to the new era in Corrections reforms we are debating in the Chamber today.
We make no apologies for wanting to crack down on crime and tackling the unacceptable rate of recidivism. You cannot do that without extra police, and we have put 400 additional police on the ground. We have toughened the laws and, for the first time, offenders convicted of certain violent offences will have to serve a term of imprisonment. That law has resulted in more first-time offenders spending time in gaol. Repeat offenders are also subject to mandatory imprisonment for serious violent offences. Repeat breaches of domestic violence orders result in mandatory imprisonment. The government introduced tough new laws regarding bail for serious violent offenders which resulted in more offenders being held in gaol.
To run the bizarre line the government is soft on crime ignores the legislative reforms brought before the Chamber through successive changes to legislation introduced by Labor Attorneys-General. We have some of the toughest laws in the nation. In the Territory - and it is showing in the significant growth in prison numbers - if you commit a crime you will do the time. That is the reality of consequences in the Territory. We understand there will always be community concerns when it comes to sentencing and ensuring the punishments handed down by the court reflect community sentiment in the law. If you look at Australian Bureau of Statistics’ data on sentencing outcomes in the Territory, we have the toughest sentencing in the nation. If you are convicted of a crime in the Territory you are four times more likely to go to gaol, with NT courts handing down the highest proportion of imprisonment sentences by far in our nation in all level of courts.
Madam Speaker, we might acknowledge Holy Family School, a fantastic school. My kids go there. The two girls have moved up to O’Loughlin, but Zac is still there.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Holy Family Catholic School students accompanied by Mrs Julie Andrews, Mrs Anne Lahy, and Mrs Ros Tellam. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Ms LAWRIE: Welcome, Holy Family, it is great to see you here. I will see you in my office later on.
Back to sentencing in our courts: you are four times more likely in the Territory than anywhere else in the nation to go to gaol, and our courts hand down the highest proportion of imprisonment in the nation. How do you cut that down? This is Australian Bureau of Statistics’ data, not something the Territory government has come up with. This is ABS data: 86% of defendants proven guilty in the NT Supreme Court received actual imprisonment compared to 66% nationally. At the NT Magistrates Court, actual imprisonment sentences are handed down at 24% of defendants proven guilty compared with 5% nationally. The NT Children’s Court hand down actual imprisonment sentences at 17% of defendants proven guilty, compared with 7% nationally. If a defendant is proven guilty with an assault offence, 92% are given actual imprisonment sentences in the Supreme Court, 71% in the Magistrates Court, and 35% in the Children’s Court. If you compare these corresponding figures nationally: that 92% in the Territory is compared to 68% nationally; the 71% in the Magistrates Court is compared to 18% nationally; and 35% in the Children’s Court is compared to 15% nationally. We are locking up Territorians at four times the national rate …
Mr Conlan: And 54% are reoffending.
Ms LAWRIE: What you have to do with those incarceration rates ...
Mr Conlan: They are reoffending.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: ... is clinically go through all the programs ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: ... around our nation to see what works to reduce recidivism, and that is what the new era in Corrections has delivered. That is what our minister for Corrections has done. He has done the research with the member for Nelson; they have brought about this dramatic change with two very useful, innovative and proven to have worked in other jurisdictions, sentencing tools which did not exist before. If you listen to the members for Katherine and Port Darwin, they both argue nothing has changed in this legislation. It is window dressing. The curtains may be different, was the bizarre contribution from the member for Port Darwin.
Community based orders and community custody orders are both new sentencing tools introduced in this legislation before the Chamber today. They are the tools in other jurisdictions, particularly Victoria, we have looked at - they are aiming to reduce recidivism by mandating programs which target the offending behaviour and provide restitution to the community. It is a critical reform. They are targeted programs specific to the individual offender which go to the offending behaviour and, importantly, restitution to the community. They do not exist under sentencing options at the moment; they are new tools as a result of legislative reform in the Sentencing Act and I support our minister for Corrections.
The community custody orders will be a new option for non-violent offenders. We have made a very clear line: violent offenders do not have these sentencing options – they are in gaol. For the non-violent offenders, primarily traffic offenders facing imprisonment of less than 12 months, there are now sentencing options and tools in deploying them. Courts will be able to order offenders serve their custodial sentence outside prison under strict supervision by Corrections, and require them to attend rehabilitation and training programs, and participate in employment and community work. New community based orders will be available to courts dealing with low-level offenders not facing an imprisonment period. Both community based orders and community custody orders will allow courts to mandate offenders’ participation in education, training and treatment programs.
An additional 31 Community Corrections officers will be recruited and stationed across the Territory to support this new era in Corrections reform. All these different additional supervision and outside the wall corrections tools will require additional Community Corrections officers; we are funding an additional 31 Community Corrections officers and deploying them across the Territory. They will be stationed in each of the regional centres and also those important growth towns of Wadeye, Yuendumu and Lajamanu, in Nhulunbuy and on Groote Eylandt. New community work crews will be established to deliver work programs in both urban and remote areas in connection with the orders.
New electronic surveillance measures will give correctional staff the ability to monitor the location and behaviour of offenders on community based orders, home detention and parole. We are using new technology – voice recognition technology and electronic bracelets. It is innovative, it is sensible, and it gives Community Corrections officers the opportunity for greater monitoring of these offenders. The Territory government will deliver an extra 45 supported accommodation and rehabilitation beds as a result of this new era in Corrections’ package. It is separate funding - separate beds to the alcohol reform beds and treatment - for the offenders focused on the offenders. We are also targeting driving offenders; they make up about 25% of our prison population and serve, on average, 75 days. What is 75 days going to do to ensure you never have another traffic offence? You have to question that. The member for Port Darwin is arguing to keep it as it is; however, about half are there for drink-driving and the other half for licensing infringements. The court will be given the power to order driving offenders facing gaol of 12 months or less into a new program, which will include alcohol and other drug treatment and therapeutic intervention, drink-driving education, a mechanical workshop, and a driver licensing training system.
We have enhanced the Elders Visiting Program because 80% of our prison population is Aboriginal. It is about getting that strength of culture and critical cultural message around why it is not appropriate to offend. We started the Elders Visiting Program in 2004 to help prisoners maintain links with their community and culture. This has grown to have more than 20 elders offering support in both Alice Springs and Darwin correctional centres. A new post-release support program will be established to provide that all important post-release support and accommodation for prisoners at the end of their sentence. That is new and innovative; it has not happened in the Territory in the past. It is critical when you look at corrections reforms around our nation and the world. These programs are proven to work. If you support it post-release, you are reducing recidivism.
This government is taking action on the alcohol reforms and to reduce recidivism. We are confident our community will benefit, and this will make the Territory a safer place. Aboriginal offenders make up 82% of our prisoners. Aborigines have low numeracy and literacy skills and, sadly, few job prospects. The government will invest in education and training as part of the new era reforms, and with housing and health in the bush. None of this happens if you are not getting education and training through a correctional facility. The new correctional facility at Holtze, not Weddell, delivers the opportunity for improved education and training.
The already-established Barkly Work Camp is focused on education and training. The reforms are about providing contemporary facilities and contemporary practices to break the cycle of crime and recidivism. The new facility at Holtze will be constructed based on the advice of experts who looked at the Berrimah facility and independently advised it could not be rebuilt; it could not be added to, to get the education and training outcomes critical to reducing the cycle of recidivism.
You can have the empty rhetoric of the opposition around mandatory rehabilitation, treatment, and training and education; we are doing it in these reforms. We have embedded it into this legislation and you are not going to support it. The opposition is hypocritical. You walk outside and there is not a single time you do not say …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … under the CLP there would be mandatory treatment and rehabilitation; it is all about training. We are doing it. We are funding it through the new era in Corrections …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: We are funding it in the alcohol reforms you do not support either. You voted against the alcohol reforms and now you are going to vote against the new era in Corrections. Back up your rhetoric. We are funding and introducing …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: … treatment, training, education and rehabilitation. It is all in here. Back up your rhetoric; support it. You will not support it. You do not get it; you will not support it. I wonder if they have taken the time to read it, given the shadow Corrections spokesperson thought we were building a prison in Weddell when it has been Holtze for a long time. The CLP is saying the Territory does not need a new prison and would scrap the project. The old prison, it says, will provide a focus on rehabilitation, education, and breaking the cycle. Independent experts have advised that is not the case; Berrimah cannot be reconstructed to that extent …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: These reforms are bold and introduce contemporary corrections practices into the Territory for the first time. When I was elected to parliament in 2001, one of my greatest desires was to be a member of a Labor government with the strength …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you will cease interjecting!
Ms LAWRIE: … the vision and the boldness to reform corrections. This era has come. The Labor government has stepped up to the plate, working with the Independent member for Nelson – I acknowledge that – and is making the most dramatic reform to corrections in the history of the Territory with the focus on reducing recidivism, giving genuine rehabilitation treatment, education and training to offenders to break that cycle and provide the post-release support you need to diminish the chances of someone reoffending. It is recognising there is a clear and stark difference between the non-violent offenders and the violent offenders. It is recognising the curse alcohol has on fuelling offending rates in the Territory. I am proud of the work done by the minister for Corrections, working with the Independent member for Nelson, in identifying these reforms.
Madam Speaker, this government stands proud with these correctional reforms. People working in the correctional system support them. The police support them. The judiciary support them. Legal services around the Territory support them. The opposition stands on its own fighting against what are the most contemporary, sensible and evidence-based reforms in our nation. I sincerely congratulate our minister for Corrections.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is one of the most important debates we could have in parliament because we need to come from a philosophy that gaol is not the only form of punishment. If we believe four walls are the only way we punish people then we have a very narrow point of view about what we are trying to achieve.
Long before this Assembly of parliament I have had an interest in outcomes for people in prison in the Northern Territory. I travelled to the United States and looked at two prisons: the West Central Community Correction Facility in Marysville, Ohio and the Ohio Reformatory for Women, a very large prison in the United States. As much as people sometimes talk about United States prisons as breaking rocks, wearing pink outfits and having chains all over the place, the American prison system I saw is far more advanced than that. It looks at alternatives we could look at, which I have mentioned to the minister, being therapeutic communities. I have also visited 11 prisons in Australia. Naturally, I visited our prisons several times. I have visited prison farms and the work camp system in Western Australia. I went to Wyndham some years ago promoting the idea we should have that type of work camp in the Northern Territory, and we now have one in Tennant Creek.
I am not looking at this legislation in isolation because if you do you will find issues about whether it will work or not. I look at it as part of an overall package in Corrections. I say ‘in Corrections’ on purpose because this government has much work to do in ensuring people do not get into the correctional system in the first place. There is more work to be done with youth, and much more work to be done in society in general, whether it is parenting, early intervention or more discipline, especially with our young people.
When I had an interview with six inmates from the West Central Community Correction Facility in Ohio, most said the reason they got into trouble was not only because they got into drugs or alcohol, it was because they had no fences; they had no limitation on what they could do. Our society tends to talk about freedom without the responsibility. We need much more emphasis on putting fences up and saying those fences are legitimate.
We have this concept of as long as it is safe it is okay. We do not say it is not right in the first place, but you can do it as long as it is safe. We do that with a number of issues of concern in our society. Alcohol is a classic example. There is no talk about whether excessive consumption of alcohol is necessarily bad; it is if you are going to get drunk have someone sober drive you home or, if you are not sober, stay overnight. There is no talk about whether excessive use of alcohol is something we should not be doing, yet many of the people in our prison are there for excessive use of alcohol.
While discussing this today, I am not saying to the government it is doing a great job keeping people out of gaol. The issue is what we are doing with people in Corrections, and whether we can do a better job in ensuring they do not return.
I look at the big picture and, under the system we have with two big gaols, we have a very poor record; we have the highest recidivism - the minister said that in his second reading - of any state or territory in Australia. The question you ask in estimates, or budget considerations when talking about outcomes, is when it comes to recidivism our outcomes are extremely poor. If that is the case, we should be looking at alternatives. The opposition may not agree with these alternatives; however, I would rather a government have a go at alternatives - and by all means for the opposition to criticise; that is its job, I am not knocking that – a government that did something rather than nothing. For too long, nothing has happened.
My name has been mentioned in relation to this and I have no problem with that. I am happy and proud I had some involvement in these changes. I was not involved in all of them. I have been trying to look at the bigger picture. It is good we have work camps. We have one in Tennant Creek, one planned for Katherine, and a prison farm. None of what I am saying about Corrections was limited to one item about having community based orders or the like. I was trying to look at the bigger picture of how to get people out of the big prison at Holtze. I would rather not see that big prison full. I have seen the graphs saying if we keep incarcerating people at the rate we are, we will need all that prison. I would rather we did not have those people in prison.
Punishment is still part of Corrections and this debate is about how we can have that punishment without necessarily putting people behind four walls which, over the last umpteen years, has shown not to change people’s behaviour. There are other circumstances where behaviour is not changed, especially when people go back to a place of unemployment, overcrowding, etcetera. We know that. There is no evidence to show the system we have of putting everyone in prison - behind four walls - has necessarily achieved anything. We need to highlight the fact more than ever that 80% of people in our prisons are Aboriginal. I am not saying they should not be punished, but is the method of punishment appropriate in the circumstances? Do we continue without questioning that? That is what this debate is about today.
Let us try something different. Not all these ideas have come from me; the government has brought some in, and the Northern Territory is not alone with some of these ideas. New South Wales has intensive correction programs. You can look that up on the website and find they have something very similar. Also, looking in isolation at the Northern Territory, it is blinkered. Australia has a major problem with the number of people entering our prisons. It is a problem not just for the Territory; it is a problem for Australia. Other states are looking at ways of reducing those numbers.
I try to put this into perspective because if one narrows this debate down to what is in the legislation - I have some questions I am going to ask in committee stage and I will give you an example. We will have community custody orders. People will be required to work, and they will be required to undertake training. The issue I raised during the briefing was they may be allowed to drink. If they were in prison, they would not be allowed alcohol. In the legislation we have not said alcohol will be banned from someone allowed to stay home under community custody orders. The debate, so far, has mentioned many of the people allowed to be part of the community custody orders were those who had been affected by alcohol. If they went to prison, they would not be allowed to drink. One of the punishments in having someone on community custody orders would be they would not be allowed to drink, and if they were found to have alcohol in their blood, they would immediately go to gaol.
There are areas which need questioning. I agree with the principle. The more alternatives you have the more options for people because not every person and not every case is the same. If you can fit the punishment to the crime, and hopefully that punishment means these people will not come back, that, at least, is a good process.
The other area I am interested in - I do not know if you can back it up statistically - it has been said some people like to go to gaol. It is much better than being home and humbugged. You get three meals a day and, generally speaking, life is not as bad as in some of the communities. The alternative of community custody orders means you stay in that community; you are not automatically going to the house with three meals, a bed, and not being humbugged for money or whatever. Maybe that is more of a punishment. People have said home detention in some cases is harder than being in prison because of the pressure of family, the pressure of the community around you, and the pressure of the pub being just up the road. For some people, this will be the harder alternative. The other side is they may find it is so hard they break the community custody order to ensure they go to prison. It may not work. Some people are pretty clever when working out the easier route.
We have a major problem in society. If we have so many people in prison, there are reasons for that. I do not want to see this debate left high and dry. The ongoing debate has to be how we keep people out of prison. Early intervention is something we have to spend more money on. The child protection reviews have raised the important issue of parenting skills, an area we have to spend more money and time on. Many young people today are having children at early ages with no parenting skills at all. I do not know how those children are going to be brought up in a loving place when mum and dad - if you can call them mum and dad - dad might be around sometimes. Where is the stable environment? Without that stable environment, there is a chance those young people will end up in gaol.
I refer to the Ohio case again. Those six men sat in front of me and said from an early age - we are talking about 10, 11, and 12 - all were able to get drugs. Mainly marijuana at the beginning, and then they went onto bigger drugs which caused them to get into crime - or alcohol. They came from broken families or families where parents were not home. If you fitted within that clientele, you could guarantee someone would be in prison later in life, and the proof of the pudding was those people. They all wanted to get out of it, they all wanted to turn their lives around, but that was why they were there.
We need to debate at another stage - it is part of this overall bigger picture - if we let people out of prison and they have no hope, even if they are doing community custody orders, will they come back again because no one is there to ensure they have a job. Where is the intense follow-up of people leaving prison? Where is the mentoring? We have over 1000 people in our prisons. How many mentors do we have working with these people to ensure they have a job? How much are we working with councils to guarantee people can get a job? How much are we talking with the federal government? The federal government has a fair bit to play in changing the way many of our Aboriginal people end up in the justice system. Without jobs and on continual welfare, the future for many of these people getting out of gaol will be going back to gaol.
It is not just about what is put forward today; it is about the bigger picture. Today we are focusing on the legislation that is part of the bigger picture. We should understand just because we are doing something in relation to options for punishment that there is no guarantee they will work. It is better to try something new, especially when the evidence in front of us is that the existing system is not working. It is better for government to have a go. If it fails, at least it tried. I would rather governments put forward proposals and try something than say: ‘It is all too hard’. Government will be knocked for it, but the proof of the pudding will be whether recidivism is reduced and whether the numbers in our institutions are reduced. If it is not making a difference, the government has to say it was no good and needs to try another path.
Minister, one of the alternatives - I have said to you and your predecessor, Mr Stirling, that you should visit the Ohio system. It is an alternative called therapeutic communities where prisoners help themselves. When you see painted signs on the wall saying: ‘He is my brother’, you will understand the system is about prisoners helping fellow prisoners change habits that got them there in the first place.
We need to look at all options; this is only part of the option. I would like to see a prison farm in Alice Springs or Central Australia. There is land at Holtze. We had one at Gunn Point. We should have a prison farm. Beatrice Hill had a chook farm which lasted about two years. Gunn Point has closed down; Beatrice Hill was closed down under the previous government …
Mr Elferink: For want of prisoners, believe it or not!
Mr WOOD: No, Gunn Point was not short of prisoners, it was just closed; there were other reasons. If the excuse is it is too expensive and we will stick people in a big walled gaol - we have to spend the money to come up with alternatives. The shame is that Wildman River was closed - a terrible decision. We should be looking at juvenile detention areas outside of Don Dale. Don Dale does nothing. It is a concrete and steel structure and that is about it. Wildman River gave first offenders a chance to turn their lives around and was successful. Alternatives need to be looked at. Juvenile crime is an issue. Diversionary programs exist and, in quite a few cases, are successful. It all needs to be looked at as part of the bigger picture.
The member for Port Darwin spoke about the possibility of people getting their licence back after being suspended. I would have some concerns as well. The act says it is subject to a court order not just something that happens. If it was not for that I would be concerned, but there is application for a court order for licence under Division 3. That can be rejected, which is a balance. I understand where the member for Port Darwin is coming from and have some sympathy. The legislation does not say you will automatically get your licence back. You have to apply to the court for that licence. From my point of view, that reflects that legislation has to be flexible enough to take in different situations, different circumstances, and different people. There is enough flexibility in the legislation to ensure it is not an automatic given because that would concern me.
I support the bill. I have quite a few questions to ask in the committee stage. I do not know it if will work. I would rather see something put forward as an alternative to a system that, statistically, we know is not working. As the member for Macdonnell said, there are people who should go to prison, but I wonder if there are other forms of imprisonment that do not require four walls but still send out the message that people are being punished.
I will say something which may come up in estimates. We have to be careful we do not over-emphasise training and those type of things. I am not saying they are not important, but if people are on community orders then a large percentage of the time should be spent working. That is an area the government should tweak.
Mr Elferink: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: I would rather see people do some of their training late afternoon or in the evening, and during the day they should be working. The idea of work camps is giving back to the community. The back of the t-shirt of people in Western Australia says: ‘Paying back to the community’. This is mentioned in the second reading. The emphasis should be on working, no alcohol - that would happen if they were in prison - and training, but do not let it take over the aspect of giving back to the community because they have done something wrong. That philosophy has to be the focus; the training is secondary. I am not saying scrap either one, but the balance has to be right.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill. I am keen to see how it operates in practice, whether there are any changes in recidivism, and whether the community sees this, by its very nature of being out in a community, as a good option where people can be seen to be repaying the community.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, if you are going to expect a different result by doing the same thing you are mad. That is the view Einstein has taken. We have observed the actions of this Labor administration for 10 years, and I am not prepared to allow it to go any further. It is a sham. You have dressed this up and inflated it as though it is something extraordinary. You have called it a whole new era - I have been hearing that for nearly three years. The whole new era is designed to create an impression, once again. This Labor government is more interested in creating the impression rather than getting down to serious work.
The Attorney-General spent most of her time finding tricky debating points to get under the skin of the opposition rather than attend to the serious business of Corrections ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr MILLS: Check your Hansard …
Ms Lawrie: Yes, I have.
Mr MILLS: If you cannot see it, there is something seriously wrong. Calling it a whole new era is one thing; is it a whole new era?
The member for Nelson is probably awake to this. I have been in the Chamber for 12 years, the member for Nelson slightly less. There are things we have talked about in opposition, and me for a short time in government as a backbencher, which are boot camps, work camps and so on. These matters have been part of community discussions. There is a desire within the community for a different approach based on a different principle, that being the first thing you need is to provide a response to a violation of a law - a punishment. The community then has a sense of what is right and wrong; you reinforce what is right and wrong. If we have deemed something to be wrong, there has to be that which is viewed as a punishment that fits that crime.
You then have rehabilitation; you respond to the cause. However, you do not get it the other way round. From the point of view of Labor, you can speak the language which creates the impression you are tough because you know the community wants that. You con them by saying: ‘whole new era’. You pretend you are tough. I cannot believe the Attorney-General can say, with a straight face: ‘These are the toughest laws in the nation’, when the evidence of the application of that law betrays that fact. They may well be tough in some consideration, but they have to be effective; they have to produce results; you have to change behaviour. At the heart of this we do not see any fundamental change in the way you deal with Corrections because if you are going to correct behaviour, that is a Corrections system. If the Corrections system does not change behaviour you will end up with crime rates continuing to rise. That would be the evidence. Do we have that evidence? Absolutely!
It is embarrassing to the government that their tough talk and conning of the electorate - appealing to the conservative instincts of the electorate who want a tougher, clearer, more sensible and logical approach that makes sense and is around community standards. The game is up and they know this government has gone one step too far. What has it done to cover itself? It has buried, concealed and confused people further by not releasing the crime statistics in the same manner as before. That would be further evidence of the con job we have from the Labor administration. People are up to it; they have had it. We are not listening to you any more - you have to see the evidence. If you can say: ‘whole new era’, it has to be that. We have had a decade of this nonsense! We have to have change.
I am disappointed the member for Nelson, with his passion - he has been on about this for a very long time – said: ‘At least you have to try something’. For goodness sake, it is a whole new era. If it is a whole new era, it has to look like something different that will give us confidence that it will produce a different result. This is how difficult it is for those on the other side to grasp this because you say: ‘You guys are always talking about rehabilitation’. Yes, but first the punishment that fits the crime. Send the message then restore, but you have to do it in that order. At the heart of this is the same thinking that has caused the problem. You have it the other way round.
We recognise the home environment is a contributor to the problem that brought people to the legal system in the first place. The thinking behind this is you allow them to go back to that place to send a message. The real problem is the prisons are full because it is not a whole new era. No one is really concerned about going to the prison. I did not send my kids - when I was trying to change their behaviour and let them know what was right and wrong - to their playroom to play with their toys. I sent them to a place to think about things for a while, and then reflect and make a better decision. It was not a pleasant option - eat ice cream until you come to your senses. You have to do something which causes them to reconsider and make a better decision. You do not provide them with excuses. You do not cover a reprehensible action the community has deemed to be inappropriate with an excuse. You have to cover it with a meaningful consequence so there is a second thought.
That is why, minister, the whole new era we described in 2008 - we can have the debate here; we know this is theatre, sadly - was taken to the election in 2008 by the Country Liberals. Make no mistake about it. The community thinks what you are saying is what it supported from the Country Liberals. That was a different approach. A corrections system needs to correct behaviour and we had a different approach. I have been to the prison. Everyone is trying their best, but you have to change the system. I have heard from prison officers that people do not mind going to prison. That is a real problem. We wanted a different approach where it may be unpleasant because it is hard work and there is structure around it. We had described to us, quite clearly, what a prison farm would look like and we were going to take a different approach, a whole new era; change the way the system operated.
I do not see evidence of this here. It is a con job to say we now have legislation to create and substantiate this talk that has been going on for three years, when, in fact, it is an appropriation of something described by the opposition in 2008, which the Territory community supported. You have misappropriated that; used the slogan and the headline to con people. We have not seen any evidence that crime statistics are changing. We have empty assertions like: ‘Trust me’; ‘We believe this will reduce recidivism’. Show us the evidence. Convince us this is going to happen, because the capacity to employ most of the measures described in this legislation already exists.
This is a further opportunity for you to provide a headline, to send a message. Once again, we see this as a political exercise to make the government look as though, in the face of the community, it is doing something. However, it is three years on, we have one year to the election, and you can probably feed some of these threads in. Your focus groups will come up with it, and you will find some way of sorting this out.
By the way, sadly, Territorians, you are paying for these focus groups because the government wants to rebadge itself and give some substance to the look and the feel of government because it has a bit of a problem. The brand is a little broken and people do not listen anymore. People do not come to you at events around the community to say: ‘Gee whiz, you blokes are doing a great job’. I bet that is not happening. I have seen a slackening off of your presence at community events. Sometimes you do not stay too long because when people ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: What I am saying ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, order!
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr MILLS: I have been urged in the past by members opposite: ‘You have to get out there and hear what people are saying. Get out there!’ I am out there and I do not hear those calls coming too often from people on the other side because they are probably hearing the same things I am ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes, member for Johnston, I attended the show circuit in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Darwin. Whilst I was there – I hope the fundraiser went well in Tennant Creek – I enjoyed it, and it gave me an opportunity to hear what people had to say. They want a genuine, new era which resonates in a way where they believe it will produce a different result to that we are currently seeing. We have not had any adjustment to the rhetoric and it has not produced any result to give people confidence you guys are going to do something different or produce a different result other than having government by slogan. That will not change people’s behaviour.
The community will understand our position; we cannot go along with this sham any longer. You have the capacity to do many of these things if you mean it; if you wanted to do your job and change people’s behaviour, rather than tinkering around at the edges trying to create an impression; not diving in deep enough to make some of the harder decisions about Corrections. You have had three years of talk about new eras which was already established for you to take up. It is a different approach; a different level of thinking you have not adopted. All you have adopted is the language and we will not support it.
Members: Hear, hear!
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Before calling questions, I have given my leave for the member for Araluen to make a personal explanation. I remind you a personal explanation is not a debate. I ask you to follow the normal courtesies and listen in silence.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation regarding the adjournment speech I delivered in parliament last night, Monday, 8 August 2011.
The topic of the speech was the report of the second meeting of the Northern Territory government’s Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee tabled in parliament on the same day. I wish to make it clear for the public record I did not, at any point, make an inference or a reference to the chairman of the committee, Professor Vimpani, as can be noted in the Hansard transcript. Therefore, any allegation that I have defamed, slandered or discredited Professor Vimpani is entirely false and misleading.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, in speaking on the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 (Serial 167), I note a comment has been made by the minister that this is a great new era in Corrections. A great new era is needed to cover the great new problem, that is, the overflowing gaols. I hope the minister is aware there are prisoners currently in correctional facilities in the Northern Territory who are let out prior to their release date because the prisons are full and they need to make room for people receiving court sentences. My understanding, from anecdotal evidence, is this practice has been occurring for some time because prisons are bursting at the seams. No wonder they need to build another new, big gaol.
A number of things have been said today, and I have made notes on some of them. The member for Nelson made a number of very good points. He pointed out gaol is not the only option, and that is true. However, people in the Territory who choose to go against the good commonsense rules of our community need to understand responsibility, accountability and the fact that there are consequences. We need consequences in our system as a deterrent. We also need to fix some of the current systemic policy failures in law and order and alcohol policy. We need to create rehabilitation facilities. If you want to keep people out of the system, you need to rehabilitate them. I ask government to consider some of the Country Liberal Party policies in relation to rehabilitation.
If you remove those people with alcohol problems from your community you will have a reduction in the number of alcohol-related crimes and alcohol-related domestic violence. The problem is it is very difficult, when you give someone a banned drinker notice, to fix their addiction simply by giving them a piece of paper. I have been out in the community since 1 July talking to businesses, licensed premises, shop owners and the public in general and what I hear is very interesting. Unlike the minister, who is hearing something entirely different, I have another story to tell. I will relate that to the House and hope the minister for Corrections and the Minister for Alcohol Policy might take on board some of the issues.
I was talking to some ladies in the community on Sunday who noticed, in the last few weeks, people walking around the northern suburbs sniffing glue and sniffing petrol. It is very sad. These are people they have seen in the community inebriated. Some of these people are probably part of the nearly 900 people on the Banned Drinker Register. They have now turned to another drug of choice - petrol - which is alarming because if you want to kill your brain quickly get into petrol. It is great stuff, it will kill your brain - for some people in about four months. Alcohol takes a little longer, and alcohol is bad enough. Once you give these people a notice, they are going to need something to replace the alcohol.
From talking to businesses and people in the community, these people are still getting alcohol - this is within a month. Taxi drivers say they take people to shopping centres who they believe are on the Banned Drinker Register. They have seen people with half a dozen drivers’ licences. They say they have reported this. When asked if anything has happened they say: ‘No, they still seem to be the same people’.
We have had experience in Alice Springs talking to business people and the police force - and I accept the Chief Minister said today he has spoken to people in the police force and they are very supportive. I accept that; that is fair enough. If the Chief Minister says to police officers: ‘How is my policy going?’ it is probably not going to occur to them to debate government policy with the Chief Minister. A public servant or a police officer is required to implement policy of the government of the day. I do not have any problem with that. In this House we can hold the government to account and point out deficiencies in those policies which, perhaps, the government might take it on.
I am aware that this should be an apolitical issue; however, the government and the opposition, are not poles apart - we are apart, in some areas of how you might go about resolving the problem. We on this side believe alcohol is a terrible problem in the community. Domestic violence happens too regularly and we need to fix it. We believe giving people an option to go to mandatory rehabilitation or stay on the Banned Drinkers Register is not the way to go. The member for Nelson mentioned we should be looking at early intervention, schools and community education. There is a range of issues that should be part of the big, new era of correctional services to cover the big, new problem.
You have to educate people early in relation to, not only alcohol, but all drugs, and the terrible affliction some people have. Addiction can be a terrible thing. Take away the alcohol and what are you going to replace it with? These people are addicted. If you could do that with cigarettes, wouldn’t it be great? You say: ‘Here is a notice that you cannot smoke any more’. ‘Great, I am not smoking any more’. It is not going to happen. Nicotine, alcohol - a whole range of drugs are very addictive.
On this side of the House we hear the Minster for Alcohol Policy say we do not care; we want to put 858 people back on alcohol. That is false, we do not. We acknowledge and share your concerns that there are many people who do not drink responsibly. That is not to say there are no alcoholics. Drug addicts choose different drugs. As a community, we need to fix all of them if we can. I acknowledge government is trying to do something but we do not share the same pathways on how to achieve it. Eight hundred and fifty eight people are currently on the Banned Drinker Register. We do not want to put them back into the community. We would like to put those people into a rehabilitation facility and offer them a real chance of rehabilitation. This is about lifting people’s self-esteem. This is about fixing the stuff that causes some people to take their life. It is low self-esteem; it is having no goal, no vision and no future. If you give these people a future and assist them with their addiction, you might be able to lift their self-esteem, give them a goal and put a light at the end of the tunnel for them to work towards.
The Minister for Alcohol Policy says everyone she talks to is supportive of her scheme. I do not share that, because I am talking to real people who do not share the same view. There are people in non-government organisations determined, if we win the next election and introduce our policy – more than happy to help rehabilitate these people who suffer this terrible addiction. They support our policy. I have spoken about our habitual drunks policy and how we would go about it, and they are extremely supportive. They err on the side of caution in relation to agreeing with current government policy, and I do not expect they would say the same thing to the minister if she walked into their office.
We have to face reality; these people are looking for funding to do whatever the government of the day deems necessary. We hope, if people decide our policies are better at the next election, to implement something similar but far better than what the government has implemented. We do not want to see people back on the street once they have been taken into protective custody, or drink-drivers for that matter. We will give these people the opportunity for real rehabilitation.
That is one of the major differences between what we intend to do and what the government is doing. If a person is given a notice three times in three months they are banned from drinking and on the Banned Drinker Register. They cannot buy alcohol. I can assure members of this House there are people currently on the Banned Drinker Register who are obtaining alcohol. They get other people to buy it for them. The police have far more to do than interview people in all types of places to find out who got what, sold what to who, who paid for it, who supplied it, and take statements and prosecute people for secondary supply of alcohol. Businesses in the northern suburbs tell me when they call police the answer is: ‘Yes, we will get there as soon as we can’. These instances need immediate response. I talk to police officers at barbecues. Police are busy people desperately trying to get on top of many issues. To put another burden on police, to have to investigate secondary supply of alcohol, is going to create a far greater workload for them. Frankly, there are probably other things they would prioritise over getting statements and prosecuting people for secondary supply of alcohol.
The member for Nelson said he wanted people to go into any facility and not return. We have the highest recidivism rate in Australia, which indicates what the government is doing is not working. There needs to be radical change. The government will say: ‘We are bringing in tough new laws’. The problem is violent crime is increasing. Whatever happened has not worked. It will be interesting to see how the Banned Drinker Register works. I would be pleased to be proved wrong and happy to congratulate the government saying: ‘You have cut crime, you have done this and you have done that’. I am sceptical, which is why we have a different policy.
We have 858 people banned, what are they doing? What are they drinking? What are they sniffing? What is the government doing to help rehabilitate those people? The Minister for Health said in Question Time today there are 14 new beds at the Salvation Army. That is 14 and we have 858 people currently on the register. What are we going to do with the other 844 people if there are no beds for them? What help do they receive? Are they left swinging in the breeze? That concerns me. If we do not want these people to come back we need to provide rehabilitation services for them.
I congratulate the government on building the facility in Tennant Creek. Well done! We need more facilities in the area where people live, where there are support services and prisoners from similar backgrounds who can support each other. However, as a community, we need to support the rest, and that is only a 50-person facility at Tennant Creek. The government will say it spends more money on this and that. It is always an interesting argument. The rivers of GST that came to the Territory after the current government won in 2001 meant it had more money than the previous CLP government. I have heard in this House many times the government say: ‘We spent more money on this; we spent more money on that’. It is not about spending money; it is about achieving outcomes.
Money is an input not an outcome. When people say in this House: ‘We have spent more money here and more money there’, it is not about throwing money at problems; it is about real solutions to real problems. That is what we have looked at. We have been talking to people for many years about these problems and believe we have come up with a real solution to a real problem. I would be happy to discuss that with the government and say: ‘Take our policy’. This issue affects all of us; our parents, our kids and our relatives. There is no one in the NT community not touched in some way, shape or form by the problem of alcohol abuse in our community.
We have a problem with growing crimes statistics and the government needs to do something. What has been alarming lately is the demise of Neighbourhood Watch. The government, through Neighbourhood Watch - I am assuming there are some government initiatives - Neighbourhood Watch does not meet any more and does not have area coordinators. You are able to participant in Neighbourhood Watch from the comfort of your lounge room because it is not safe to go out on the streets.
I read in the paper police are telling people not to go out at night because the streets are not safe. In my electorate, I have women who cannot walk around the streets because they are being accosted, touched and harassed by a range of people. These people are being harassed for alcohol: ‘Can you buy us a carton?’ ‘Can you do this?’ ‘Can I give you $50 to buy me a carton?’ There is pressure from people on the Banned Drinker Register, which is not necessarily a bad thing; however, people are supplying them. Taxi drivers are saying this is a very interesting situation. They are told by the people themselves, or their friends, that so and so is on the Banned Drinker Register; however, they pull out half a dozen drivers’ licences and take someone into licensed premises or takeaway shops that looks like them and they are served. There are also people, I am led to believe, freely buying alcohol for their friends and relatives. Does not do us much good!
On the other hand, under our policy, if you are picked up three times in six months you are given the opportunity to go before a tribunal, go to a non-government organisation - one of the service providers - who will then provide some real rehabilitation. If you chose not to complete that or do not fulfil the requirements, that will be an automatic trigger to go to some real mandatory rehabilitation at a rehabilitation facility, at this stage in Katherine and then in Alice Springs. I can hear it now, people will ask: ‘How are you going to fund it?’ ‘How are you going to do it?’ ‘This will cost a lot of money’. It probably will, but the Treasurer tells us alcohol abuse costs about $642m per year …
Mr Conlan: That is the cost of not doing it.
Mr STYLES: That is the cost of not doing it. If we do it and take some of these people out of circulation by giving them some real rehabilitation, we can save money.
The gaols are overflowing. We have people on the Banned Drinker Register who can get alcohol from their friends, get whacked again, and off they go creating havoc. They are using up police resources when they assault people. We then have people in hospitals. We then have people with physical injuries, perhaps for a very long time, perhaps forever. We have people dying. We have people going through the court system. If that person was put into real rehabilitation such as we are proposing, they would not be out on the street. With a little luck we can help rebuild their lives and give them some guidance and opportunities; teach them some skills and, as the member for Nelson said, follow up with some jobs.
I have dealt with many habitual drunks and once they dry out, more often than not are very nice people. They have an addiction and when addicted to things, or under the influence of whatever drug it is, sometimes a nasty personality trait comes out. The community has to put up with that. Unfortunately, the numbers are growing and to stem that we need some serious policies. We need to not only give people the skills to survive in the world so they are not feeling bad about themselves; we also need to teach them about responsibility, accountability, and consequences. They are three words which feature in our policy on this side of the House.
The other thing raised in today’s debate was in relation to community custody orders. If the crime is alcohol-related and people with an addiction are being tracked and told not to drink, that is a big ask. As the member for Nelson said, if you send them home and the pub is just up the road, the temptation is there. Addiction is a terrible thing. What happens if they go there thinking they will sneak in for one, or get someone to drop a carton around home and get smashed there? They start the cycle again; there is the possibility of domestic violence and there is trouble. If the person is found to be in breach they are back to prison.
That is where we struggle. The prisons are overflowing and if these people end up back in prison because they are addicted, we go through the cycle all over again. I accept the minister has said we need a big, new prison to fix our big, new problem, and it will have specialised facilities. I understand we have education facilities at Berrimah at the moment which may not be palatial, but exist. If we have been doing that, why do we have such a high recidivism rate, especially for Aboriginal people? That is a problem the government needs to fix.
I do not know if a new building would fix that. It is about an attitude and what you do. I would much rather see rehabilitation facilities where you can put people in an area conducive to picking up jobs after being released - real job training. Prisons are notoriously difficult places to relax in. These people, more often than not, are only high risk when under the influence of alcohol. These people may be drink-drivers. Of course, people who drink-drive are an enormous risk to our community. I do not need to go into the history of problems with drink-driving. Generally, when these people are sober they are not bashing people, breaking bones or smashing heads in. They can be the recipients of some real rehabilitation where we can give them some hope. Hope is all many of these people need.
I accept, in the statistics somewhere, there are some seriously addicted people we may not successfully change in the short term. We may have to spend longer rehabilitating some people. It is also about giving people outside the circle looking in, the idea that government and opposition - members of the parliament of the Northern Territory - are about making these people responsible, accountable, and aware there are serious consequences for their behaviour. We have to sober these people up, teach them skills and teach them, whilst sober, the responsibility and accountability aspects and that there are consequences.
If you look at the situation as being a number of circles inside each other, the inner circle is a group of people seriously addicted to alcohol who do not have the capacity to hold down a job and are in serious need of help. We would like to, as a community, help those people. The next circle is people on the way to becoming part of the inner circle who lose the will and ability to conduct themselves in a normal manner throughout the day. Those are the people at high risk of us, as a community, losing them forever. Many sit in bars or at home and do not harass anyone or cause problems. However, they are alcoholics.
Then there is a third circle outside those two where people are looking in at the problem. They are thinking: that looks like fun; maybe I can put my feet up, have a few drinks and enjoy the company of some people who are laughing and rolling around looking happy. When we look at some of the problems caused by alcohol abuse we do not find much happiness. However, through tragedies, through family circumstances, by being shunned by the community, a whole range of reasons, these people find themselves coming in from the outside.
As a community, it is beholden on us to educate these people it is not the way to go. These people may end up in protective custody, or have three incidents with the police in six months. They are the people we would be able to win over with the least amount of effort and the least cost to the community. This is the point where we should be putting in a great deal of work - the low cost end. Once people reach that inner circle it costs a great deal. It is not that we should not try, but if we educate our youngsters in schools about the ills of drug abuse, and try to educate people on the outside of the circle coming in and demonstrate to them they may not be able to sit around with their friends, they may find themselves in a rehabilitation facility under a mandatory rehabilitation order, perhaps they might change their behaviour.
The government in debate today, and in Question Time, spoke about changing behaviour. The government said we have to do things to change people's behaviour. If the government takes on board some of the things mentioned today by the Independent member for Nelson and the opposition and implements them, it may help alleviate some of the social issues we have.
I do not resile from the fact we have major problems which need major policies to fix. It is not going to happen overnight. The government does not have a magic wand; we do not have a magic wand. However, the opposition has some ideas we would ask the government to give consideration to in order to improve it for us so our kids, when they go to the shops on Saturday morning, are not being humbugged for money and when teenagers go there they are not humbugged by people to buy alcohol.
Some of these people are going to work out, sooner or later, that you can buy alcohol online. The Minister for Alcohol Policy said we miss out on taxes. People in the liquor industry have told me recently they are already seeing a decline in business and the sale of …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move that the member for Sanderson be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; and thank you, member for Katherine.
There is a range of issues we would ask the government to look at. We would like to see crime statistics in relation to violence. The government does not want to issue those because they are scary at times. We still have major problems with black market alcohol. I received feedback recently that the use of cannabis in Aboriginal communities is on the rise. A reliable source said: ‘I have to tell you, sure, there are people on the Banned Drinker Register, but they are now shifting from alcohol to cannabis’.
If people are addicted to any drug they will go to great lengths to get their supply. Banning one legal drug makes them shift to illegal drugs, and we are seeing that with cannabis, glue, and petrol. The example of petrol and glue is alarming because they will kill people’s brains in a short period. It is like drinking methylated spirits or Listerine when people cannot buy alcohol. When people buy alcohol they are not buying cask wine. They are going for top of the shelf stuff with a high alcohol content. Because it is hard to get, they take the higher alcohol level. They are right up with high level rum. That is of concern because often they do not slow down on the drink; they drink just as much but with higher alcohol content.
We probably will see a reduction in the amount of alcohol sold because there is a shift. I am reliably informed by people in the alcohol industry they are seeing a reduction in sales. They are hearing from people that purchasing alcohol is moving online. Many people can go online now and have it delivered to the house or the post office. If you are on the Banned Drinker Register, I wonder how long it will be before people say: ‘I will not buy in the Territory. I will just have it delivered. I can go to the hotel and drink with my mates, but I cannot take anything home from the drive through or takeaway section’.
The government has tried to fix a problem and created others. There is no mandatory rehabilitation in relation to petrol or glue sniffing. People are calling for that to happen. I hope the government listens to what the community is saying, especially those in the community who have to deal with these problems on a daily basis and those desperately trying to rehabilitate some of these people.
There is a range of issues here. The government says everything is great. Question Time today reflected it trying to get the message out all is well; there are no problems. I can assure the Minister for Alcohol Policy there are serious issues not being fixed by this legislation, and the government will eventually have to deal with the rehabilitation issue. What the government says is mandatory is not mandatory. It will have to make it mandatory so there is no choice around rehabilitation. As a community, we should work out how both sides of this House can fix the terrible problem affecting virtually every person in the Territory. I ask the government to look at those things and perhaps revisit Country Liberals’ policy. We would be happy for you to implement any part of the Country Liberals’ policy you wish.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, listening to the government today in Question Time reminds me of Comical Ali, the Iraqi information minister during the Gulf War. When the Americans were bombing the bridge and coming down the main strip of Baghdad, Comical Ali was saying: ‘It is okay, everything is fine. We are winning the war; we are going to push the Americans back’. I forget his real name, but they called him Comical Ali. He was able to laugh off, in the face of adversity, the Americans bombing Baghdad to pieces. He stood there and put on such a brave face. It is much like the government today. In fact, it is much like the government, full stop, and how it has been for a number of years. Today was a case in point with regard to alcohol measures and the toughest laws we have seen in the history of laws.
The government believes its own rhetoric, which is part of the problem. When you start to believe your own rhetoric or your own rubbish there is really no way out; you are on a dangerous, rocky, bumpy road spiralling out of control. That is where the government is today, it has lost the battle. The game is up; people have stopped listening and are desperate for change. They would probably give you a break if you demonstrate you can change. They might even give you half a chance; however, they have stopped listening.
It is interesting to watch the political analysis programs on the Gillard Labor government. They say that when people start feeling sorry for a government you know it is terminal. People can be angry at the Prime Minister or angry with the government, but when they start to feel sorry for the government it is terminal. There is really no way out; that is when you are in big trouble. I do not know if it has reached that point with you guys. I am guessing in some regional parts of the Territory it may well be. Whether or not they are quite there on the real battleground, the northern suburbs of Darwin, I am not sure but we cannot be too far off.
It has been 10 hard long years of the Labor government and we are seeing these so-called new innovations. It is a bit of an oxymoron; that is how it plays out - a new innovation. We have suddenly discovered alcohol is a problem and have the toughest new measures in the history of the Northern Territory.
To understand exactly what this bill is about and why it is before the House we have to look at how we got here. We have a situation that is completely out of control and has spiralled into a madness situation. The streets are out of control across the Northern Territory. I am not trying to overstate it; I cannot put a finer point on the fact people across the Northern Territory do not feel safe on the streets. Some of the smaller regional parts of the Territory such as Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine, are small country towns where people should feel comfortable and safe. There is a high expectation you can walk from a restaurant to a bar, or another restaurant or club at night without fear for your safety. There is a high expectation you can allow your children to ride their bikes after school into the dusk hours in the parks and playgrounds. There is a high expectation towns across regional and remote parts of Australia, small country towns like Alice - we call it a town but it is a city with wide streets, a lovely, clean, culturally diverse country town where people are drawn for a number of reasons.
However, we have seen as a result of the failed law and order policies of the Northern Territory government - when the government took office it had some grand ideas and was swept up in the euphoria of winning government and wanted to change the world, as anyone would. The first couple of years you tried your best and did pretty well. The CLP was in for 27 years. There is no doubt the back had to be broken eventually. It was, and you guys had a wonderful opportunity. Under Clare Martin, you had your A team. You had some heavy hitters sitting up the front. In the last four or five years things have changed dramatically. That is when we saw the deterioration of our law and order policies across the NT.
We can look at statistics. The government does not like statistics sometimes; sometimes it does. You cannot have it both ways. However, these are the government’s own statistics it no longer wants to release on a quarterly basis because the Department of Justice has recommended that. I bet the Department of Justice has recommended that! It is plain to see why the Department of Justice has done so - they paint a pretty poor picture. They will now be released annually. These figures are the March quarter 2006. I have another one, June quarter 2006, which came in the booklet from the Office of Crime Prevention. We will not see that any more. I have these because it is the last five years where we have seen this escalation of crime or deterioration of law and order - whichever way you like to look at it.
I said yesterday crime rates in the NT are twice as high as the Australian average and, in most categories, significantly higher. The latest Police, Fire, and Emergency Services annual report shows the rate of violent crime in the Territory continues to climb. There were 570 more crimes against the person in 2009-10 than in 2008-09. In one reporting year we have seen an extra 570 crimes. The rate of violent assaults has risen by 80% during Labor’s 10 years in office - a decade of denial some might like to call it. Last financial year there were 7296 crimes against the person, compared with 6226 for the previous financial year - again, an increase. On average, there are 18 crimes against the person in the Territory every single day.
Alice Springs has felt the brunt of Labor’s failed law and order policies. Since 2004-05, robbery has increased by 450%, assaults by 87%, sexual assault by 97%, house break-ins by 64%, commercial break-ins by 185%, motor vehicle theft by 97%, and property damage by 71%. I have read out these statistics a number of times in the parliament; clearly, the message is not getting through. It is resonating across the broader NT. There are all but 12 people in the NT - and maybe a couple of really rusted-on ALP branch members - who think you are doing a good job. The rest of the Territory population are awake to what is happening.
We were talking about the recidivism rate earlier. It was interesting listening to the Attorney-General speak about reoffending. All you have to do is look at the recidivism rates. The Henderson government’s failure to provide adequate rehabilitation services has contributed to these rates rising across the NT. Figures from the ABS show, under Labor, the Territory consistently had the highest recidivism rate of any jurisdiction in Australia. These rates have been well above the national average and are currently at 54.6%. So, 54.6% people are reoffending. We have just over 60% of prisoners at the moment - about 68% prisoners - in 2010 who were previously imprisoned so they are not first-time prisoners.
We have a pretty serious situation, which is why we are here. Clearly, this bill is before the House because the battle for law and order has been lost. The war on crime is lost. If we look at the newspaper - I have held these up before - never miss an opportunity in this House - if you guys are going to drag us here out of beautiful Alice Springs, 27C today, fabulous day, and away from the beautiful town of Central Australia and the Barkly to read out propaganda puff pieces and take up hours and hours of parliamentary time to be symbolic, to suggest you are working, we all know that is not the case. Look at the legislative agenda; it is extremely light on.
We have a bill before the House at the moment, shock horror, lo and behold - news flash! We are going to ensure we never miss an opportunity to highlight the failures of this government. That is my job and what I am going to do. I am going to do everything I can to ensure you guys stay here until 9 pm every night for the next two weeks. No one is getting out of here early if I can help it.
‘Terror on Stott Terrace’ - headline from the Centralian Advocate, Tuesday, 15 February. Another one: ‘Worst Government in the Nation’. ‘Nightmare by the Park’. These newspaper headlines are nearly 12 months old now, but there have been many more and the members for Braitling and Araluen will attest to that. I should start collecting the more recent ones - I had these in my office in Parliament House. ‘Nightmare by the Park’. This one from last year: ‘Sorry Business - Alice Springs shop owner robbed three times and assaulted’. How do you think he feels just trying to make ends meet? The engine room of the country is small business. The biggest employer in the country is small business, and here is an Alice Springs shop owner robbed three times then assaulted. Enough! Is this the Alice Springs we want? No, it is not!
The Henderson Labor government has dealt nothing but lip service and rhetoric to the people of Alice Springs day in and day out for the last 10 years. The series of forums, get-togethers, talkfests and love-ins after the 2007 protest at the convention centre led to nothing. Six months later you ditched the Chief Minister who said she was committed to doing something about it. The member for Wanguri took over. What has he done? Absolutely nothing! We can talk about his failure as Chief Minister when it comes to infrastructure and all that stuff in the north Australia statement coming on a later today, another propaganda puff piece to get us through to 9 pm.
Madam Speaker, that is the story thus far. The reason we have these bills before the House, the reason we have alcohol laws and banning orders, is because of what you have failed to achieve - not what you have achieved. The member for Sanderson talked about the Banned Drinker Register and the cost of alcohol to the community - $642m a year. The Chief Minister loves to stand up, as does the Attorney-General, as does any one of you, and say: ‘$642m a year is how much alcohol is costing the Northern Territory taxpayer. It is 60% of crime across the NT. We need to get tough on it’. That is the cost of not doing it.
What is the cost of doing it? The cost of doing it is to build real rehabilitation centres across the Northern Territory with first-class clinicians - long-term rehabilitation. It has to be long-term rehabilitation. Even short-term rehabilitation is a mechanism to get people off the grog so they can regain some control of their lives.
If it is six weeks, eight weeks, you guys do not mandate rehabilitation. You can continually breach your banning order and you will be issued with a rehabilitation notice.
If you fail to turn up to rehabilitation, there is no custodial sentence; your banning order will continue. You are not giving people a custodial sentence and placing them into mandatory rehabilitation. We believe it has to be some form of long-term rehabilitation in first-class facilities which need to be built across the Territory. They will cost a significant amount of money; the cost of not doing it is $642m a year. Even if it is a six-week, eight-week, or 12-week program, someone has the ability to regain control of their life. It gets them off the booze, the fags, or whatever it is, and gets them into three square meals a day. It is a no-brainer. If they go back - and people will potentially: the evidence is against them, history is against them, stats are against them - they will lapse back into it. However, they have had the opportunity to dry out for a period and make some decisions to better their life and perhaps better their families. That is what mandatory rehab does.
We are trying to paint a picture of how we arrived at this place. Today is the third anniversary of the Northern Territory election on 9 August 2000. Happy third anniversary members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy! It is coming up to the tenth anniversary of the Northern Territory Labor government being swept to power in 2001.
To understand what this all about, we need to articulate why we are here in the first place, and I want to talk about child protection. I am not going to wander off the topic. I firmly believe the home environment for children is intrinsically linked to how they develop as an adult and whether or not they choose a life of crime. That is the choice available to some people, depending on their home environment, and it is important to understand that. The failures by this government in areas such as child protection are important to understand and articulate. The suggestion by the government today that the member for Araluen was somehow taking a swipe at a particular person - she was not taking a swipe at a particular person …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker. As the member well knows, we have a bill before the House. It is the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I ask you to remind the member for Greatorex to direct his comments to the subject before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is a bill before the House. I will give you a level of latitude but if you can come to the bill fairly soon that would be helpful.
Mr CONLAN: I am talking about the bill. The member for Nhulunbuy, if she bothered to listen, would understand that.
Ms Walker: I am listening. That is why I called a point of order.
Mr CONLAN: I said that the home …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you could come to the point of the bill that would be helpful, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: I am developing my argument, Madam Speaker. I have another 12 minutes to go with the potential of a 10-minute extension. I will use every single mechanism, possibility and second I have available to me as an elected member of parliament in this House to do so. I am sorry, I will do it.
Madam SPEAKER: As long as it is relevant.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is being particularly insolent to you. You have directed him to be relevant and he is disobeying your direction.
Mr Conlan: I am not disobeying anything.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, I remind you it is a bill before the House. We have given you 20 minutes of latitude. If you can come to the bill fairly quickly, that would be helpful.
Mr CONLAN: Twenty minutes of latitude? Madam Speaker, I am specifically talking about the bill and why we are here in the first place. It is specifically about the bill. I do not know where people in this House have been for the last 20 minutes. That is exactly what I have been talking about. I have …
Ms Walker: Rubbish!
Mr CONLAN: I have, in the last 30 seconds, shifted to child protection and highlighted some of the failures in child protection specifically because the home environment for children is intrinsically linked to how someone develops as an adult and whether or not they choose a life of crime. The member for Nhulunbuy might think that is quite funny, but it is intrinsically linked to how we all develop …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I certainly do not find this discussion funny. I am not laughing. I ask the member to withdraw.
Mr Conlan: Withdraw what?
Madam SPEAKER: Both members resume your seat, please.
Honourable members, we have before us a bill about Corrections.
Member for Nhulunbuy, that is not really a point of order. I will not ask the member to withdraw.
Member for Greatorex, I ask you to stick to the content of the bill as much as possible. While there is a level of latitude – member for Greatorex, I am referring to you – if you can stick to the content of the bill as much as possible, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I am glad you understand there is latitude required when discussing law and order issues across the Northern Territory. It is a shame the member for Nhulunbuy does not understand that. She will have her opportunity to speak. I pity those people she represents in Nhulunbuy if she does not understand the latitude required when discussing important issues such as law and order.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is prosecuting the quarrel with the member for Nhulunbuy and is being quite belligerent. Stick to the script, get on with the bill, and let us get on with it.
Madam SPEAKER: Move to the bill, member for Greatorex.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, honourable members! Get to the bill, thank you, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I am talking about the bill. We are talking about crime and Corrections. What part of Corrections do members of this House not understand? To be corrected, you have committed a crime; I am talking about crime – why we are here in the first place.
The member for Johnston clearly wants to wrap things up. If he is not interested in listening that is fine; however, I am and so are people on this side of the House. It is very important to articulate and understand why we are here and why we have reached the point where this bill has been brought to the House. This is my point.
I appreciate your discretion, your understanding and your latitude. If other people in this House - the member for Nhulunbuy - do not like what they hear and do not appreciate it, that is their problem. They can take it up with their constituents.
If you look at where we are in 2011 - I have explained the situation on the streets across the Northern Territory with regard to crime statistics, where we are in regard to rehabilitation across the Northern Territory, and the government’s attitude towards rehabilitation, particularly when it comes to alcohol and alcohol-related crime. It is important to highlight the government’s failure in this area, and that is why we are here. You said we are not talking about rapists and murderers on the streets; we are talking about those other crimes. Therefore, this is not straying from the bill if we are talking about alcohol, alcohol abuse and alcohol-related crime.
The failures of this government in child protection are setting up another generation of criminals. The home environment, and the care and protection of that home environment, is intrinsically linked to how someone develops as an adult.
The member for Johnston loves to throw stones. He is in a glasshouse throwing stones. He had a crack at the member for Katherine today about an Ombudsman’s report from 10 years ago. Member for Johnston, I will see your Ombudsman’s report and show you another 10. How is that? Even a coroner’s report; we might throw that in. What about Mataranka? What about Margaret Winter? You might be familiar with Margaret Winter, member for Johnston. We have the Margaret Winter report from 2006. We have the latest one which has just been tabled, A Life Long Shadow. We have the NTCFC intake service report, member for Johnston. You might remember that one as well. The Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit - do you remember that one? How is that? That is pretty damning as well. A report relating to child protection notifications – another one - and these are over the last few years, Health Community Complaints Service Commission.
This one was good; it should jog a few memory bells for you, member for Johnston: security arrangements. Remember? That was when your job became suddenly terminal. The Ombudsman of the Northern Territory Investigation into the Unjustified Use of Restraint and Detention at Royal Darwin Hospital - there is another one. Who can forget the Growing them strong, together report - where this all began?
I will see your report against the member for Katherine and show you another 10. I have a stack more here too. Do not forget the Little Children are Sacred report; that was pretty good. What about the one into the nursing staff crisis? Holy cow! The nursing staff crisis just about sealed your fate. Or was it the sexual assault on an infant at Royal Darwin Hospital? I am not sure. It is a litany of failures across the board from this government. You sit here and say: ‘We have the toughest laws 10 years on; we are really doing a great job’. Who are you kidding? No one! Certainly not us or the rest of the Northern Territory. There might be 12 people in this Chamber and a couple of sycophantic ALP branch members who think you are doing a good job. However, that is it. You have had it, game is up!
It is very important to highlight exactly where we have been and how we have arrived at this point with the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. If you really want to get on top of Corrections, you have to fix the issues I highlighted. You need to go back to the home environment. You need to get on top of child protection, you need to get on top of alcohol, you need to implement mandatory rehabilitation so people have the opportunity to take control of their lives albeit for five, six or seven weeks - whatever it might be. It is an appalling state of affairs we find ourselves in, in the Northern Territory.
I highlight from the Chief Minister’s statement yesterday - and this is a poignant point. I am unsure if he realised he was making the point he was when this was written for him. Who writes this stuff? Honestly! Fair dinkum, you guys have to get another speech writer. It is really bad stuff - B grade movie stuff; it is not even comedy. It does not take a brain surgeon to look through this. He talked about 40 years ago and Aberdeen. Was he comparing the Northern Territory to Aberdeen?
Does it sound familiar? It is almost the story of the Northern Territory ...
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr CONLAN: Member for Goyder, I can wrap this up in 30 seconds, thank you. It is almost the story of the Northern Territory. Yet, here it is in the Chief Minister’s statement which we will continue debating later this afternoon. Get yourself another speech writer.
Madam Speaker, thank you for your time, your understanding and your latitude. At least someone in this House understands how wide-ranging these issues are and the importance of debate in this Chamber.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, discussing Corrections today, it is ironic the government rolls out Enough is Enough, another pretty brochure package designed to sell to people the government is doing something.
I served most of my time as a police officer in my electorate of Drysdale. My efforts as a police officer were to serve and protect the people in Palmerston. What we have seen under this 10-year regime - which we are about to celebrate or commiserate an anniversary of next week – is, year by year, we have dulled down and softened up the criminal networks and allowed them to be empowered more than the victims by giving offenders another set of tools to explain why they can have bail. This is another alternative; a method by which they can get bail, parole or home detention, another tool for them to wedge themselves away from a prison sentence. This government will deliver a silver platter to the crooks. It will not change their alcoholism, their violent behaviour, or their drink-driving habits. This government will not even seize a person’s motor vehicle if they are repeat drink-drivers.
More than 50% of all our road deaths are attributed to drink-driving, yet we remind the public, if they catch too many barramundi, their car and boat will be seized. If you take a bottle of grog into the wrong part of the Territory, your car will be seized. If you lay a skid - I do not support that behaviour - in the wrong place - not a race venue, a licensed track facility - they will take your car from you. However, if you drink and drive, and continue to drink and drive, not only will they not take your car from you, they will let you have bail, or give you greater reasons to get bail because you might be able to get some form of home detention or a better recording of when you are at home.
You have done a great job to support the crooks. What about everyone else out there doing the right thing - the community trying to do the right thing that is suffering under the hard labour of this government? The community needs to be protected, not the crook. The crook has done the wrong thing; get that through your head. The bad person has committed the crime. Our policies, which were out in the 2008 election campaign and the Chief Minister conveniently thinks the world will forget about – he says: ‘Oh, you have no idea; you have no plan’. There was a raft of policies in 2008.
One of those policies was habitual drunks. Part of that was protecting our community by taking habitual drunks away from communities and providing them a place for rehabilitation. The member for Sanderson spoke well of that. Taking them to a place where they could receive proper rehabilitation but, at the same time, ensuring they could no longer harm themselves or the community.
I heard the Attorney-General today make some cheap shots around comments I made in this House. It is ironic that, as a police officer, I was involved in a forum which was the first truly national alcohol and drugs in communities forum held in Alice Springs in 2006 convened by Superintendent Jeanette Kerr. It was put to the panel from people all over Australia that one of the considerations could be - not a must do, not have to do, could be – that drive through bottle shops are not the best idea. The Attorney-General makes wild claims of: ‘That is it; that is what we are going to do. That is what the member for Drysdale is going to do’. No, the member for Drysdale was highlighting the fact other ideas were put forward. It is irony from this government intent on cover-up that we cannot get a copy of that report any more. That report seems to have gone AWOL, vanished, put in the back of the filing cabinet, locked under top secret, because it supported our argument.
Many of the things said during the 2006 forum in Alice Springs, from all jurisdictions around Australia, supported many of the ideas put forward by the opposition, and they gave reasons. That report has been hidden. Former Superintendent Greg Dowd from the Katherine region issued a two-page document as part of his portfolio paper as a superintendent on antisocial behaviour: crime prevention through antisocial behaviour, or something similar. That two-page document has also gone missing. Why is that not front and centre of your platform if you are serious about crime? It laid out the path, the process, that if you deal with drunk and antisocial behaviour in the earliest part of the day, the benefits and flow-on effect could minimise crime, save people’s lives and protect property. That document seems to have gone missing under this regime of cover-up because it was so logical and married up with what we are saying.
We need better intervention at the right time. The people of Drysdale, my electorate, need better protection from this government. They need to know you are not going to let the crooks out every minute or give them another opportunity to obtain bail, parole, or a sentence that will release them into the community when they have committed a crime. The member for Sanderson outlined a rehabilitation program under the drunks policy we put forward. That is what you should be doing.
Some of your own statistics in the roll-out of Enough is Enough today - your puff pieces in Question Time - clearly demonstrate over 800 people have been identified by your government. It is a great thing to identify these people. That has been a positive - we can clearly identify those people. We would put those people into rehabilitation; they would have somewhere to be. They would receive proper treatment. They would not just be banned: ‘By the way, you are banned. Sorry, find another driver’s licence or get a cousin, auntie or your best mate to buy the grog’. They would have some genuine, hard-nosed rehabilitation which would make a difference in their life.
If you give people another platform to sell their case of why they should be in mainstream society, I can guarantee they will use it. I have spoken to magistrates at all hours of the day - I feel sorry for magistrates at times because you ring them at 1 am, 3 am and 5 am to oppose bail or apply for a domestic violence order – they are not getting much sleep. However, we now have an extra bow for the crooks; an arsenal of how to get out of gaol for free. There is always some penalty attached, but it is another bow for them to say: ‘Let’s get out of gaol for free’. Police officers lock up the bad guy and they are back on the street even quicker under your regime. There are more bows in the arsenal of how to get on the street quicker instead of ensuring the rehabilitation process in our prisons are spotty dog, are right up there, and people who have committed offences receive a raft of rehabilitation regimes. I understand the member for Barkly is keen on this. He honestly believes he is there to make a difference so he listens to this and should be commended for that. However, we are not doing enough to rehabilitate people; we are sending people home to say: ‘Yes, I am here. I am sitting here watching Oprah again’.
That is not getting people into education, not teaching them life skills, not offering them alcohol reform, not ensuring they are unable to cause harm, or go on a one-night bender, or drink-drive again. It is a raft of things and I can see the government is trying but our prisons are overflowing and you have failed to deal with the crooks in the way you should. Showing your licence every time you buy alcohol does not help protect the people in Drysdale, Barkly or Karama.
It is disappointing the government is reaching for odd things which, if thought out and delivered better, could have been something decent, as many of these parts are already available. They are already in the tool box; you just have to apply them. That is often the case with many issues the government’s brings into parliament, such as child protection. If it applied what it has in place properly, we would be better protecting our kids, our families and our friends and would have safer parks to walk through.
The member for Greatorex is right; he has taken most of those reports off his desk. He waved around a raft of reports. The Attorney-General bangs on about a letter from the Ombudsman regarding one of our members eight years ago. That is nearly as long as this government has held power. However, there is a raft of reports condemning this government which are not receiving correction action, and not really cracking down to protect our families and our kids when they should be. The government should not be rolling out pretty brochures and puff pieces like the statements brought into the House this week. It should be getting on with doing the job and protecting our families because it has failed dismally. The crime statistics it is trying to hide again, the culture of cover-up – it will ensure it buries the next set of crime stats until the election so not to cop it again.
It must hurt you in the ribs when you realise aggravated assaults have more than doubled in the last 12 months. It is a shame; the government is a shame. Let the public know there is a better alternative; an option. We have many plans which will be rolled out again, as they were in 2008, to make a difference and help the bad people receive rehabilitation and protect the families of the Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to this very important debate on the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 (Serial 167).
As the Chief Minister regularly says to Caucus colleagues, it is important to come into this House and do something for the Territory community. They are great, team-building talks. It is a great team to work with. I thank the Chief Minister for that advice. I also thank the Attorney-General for her support as a senior and experienced minister of the Henderson government.
This bill relates to part of a raft of reforms in Correctional Services - and a very important part of the reform package. When I talk about doing something for the Territory, this government has been working hard to turn around that unacceptable recidivism rate; to offer the most disadvantaged Territorians a new start and better choices; the community reparation and repatriation; and the Northern Territory real opportunities to move on for the future. It is a very important time in history. It is definitely a new era in Corrections, and I am honoured to be the minister leading that.
In relation to commenting on members who have contributed to the debate, I have my list. I take extensive notes. It started off with two positives, but I have to flick to a couple of negatives. For the member for Drysdale, in my notebook I have written: ‘the member for Drysdale’. I thank you for that.
The next one is the member for Greatorex. Member, I correct your inaccuracies once again. Recidivism rates in the Northern Territory are 47.9%, and the national recidivism rate is 37.6%. It is unacceptable in the Northern Territory, which is one of the important reasons for this major reform in Correctional Services. The member for Greatorex took 28 minutes to mention the bill. However, he used the opportunity. He continues to talk about time in this House and taxpayers’ dollars. He used this opportunity to bang on about his own personal agenda, his own threats and intimidation - threatening members on the other side and, once again, missed the point entirely. He would want to take an interest in Correctional Services because it is an open door. We will offer people on the other side education awareness and support. That is what our government is about and that is what we deliver. If the member for Greatorex wants to drop the venom, drop the attitude, come on board and take part in serious research - I question if he read the bill before he spoke because he had no understanding whatsoever.
For the members for Sanderson and Katherine, I have to deliver two very salient points. The allegations made by the members for Sanderson and Katherine that prisoners are being released early are ludicrous and, frankly, offensive. To release prisoners early in defiance of the terms of their imprisonment set by the courts would be an offence. If the member for Katherine or the member for Sanderson thinks NT Corrections officers are breaching the law in this way, I challenge both members to report their claims to the police.
The member for Sanderson elaborated on further allegations of illegal practices around the purchases of takeaway alcohol, the production of multiple driver’s licences, and reports from the public. Once again, I urge the member for Sanderson, as a member of this House and an ex-police officer, to immediately report those claims to the police.
The member for Sanderson, though, started to touch on the debate. Where he connected with this debate was exactly what the bill offers: the capacity for the courts to send offenders into rehabilitation and training. That is what this bill is all about, and I thank you for your support. It is supported by additional government funding for more rehabilitation beds and building the capacity of the non-government organisations in our community. It is a new era package which offers wider sentencing options for the SMART Court as well. You did come around to making the point, and it was in line with what this government is doing. The other part of your contribution wandered, and got into: what happens if I breach? That is very clear. You need a briefing to learn more about Corrections and the new era package. As an ex-police officer, you would understand it. It is a matter of doing serious research on it before coming into this House and using the opportunity to abuse the government and get sensational media headlines.
The positives relate to this government, with the support of two Independents, making significant changes in Northern Territory Correctional Services as we move this bill through the House.
The member for Nelson was a very important contributor to the debate. It is obvious that he has done much research, with an active and learned approach to the topic. He understands alternative methods of correctional services. He is not looking at this legislation in isolation but as a package of reforms. That is what this is all about as there has been considerable change in Correctional Services, with more to come. He rightly challenges any government with prevention strategies for our youth, society, parents, early intervention and discipline. The link with the new era in Corrections is many of these disadvantaged Territorians are our parents, and we need better legislative tools to deal with them so they become better role models for their own kids, and we reduce this cycle of recidivism and we reduce the possibility of abuse.
The member for Nelson talked about a government having a go, and that is a pretty good summary of this government. Every day of our working life we are having a go, which makes those on the other side uncomfortable, but deep down they know it is the truth. The role of the member for Nelson in the new era was considerable, and I ask him not to underestimate his contribution.
I remember fondly and reiterate the stories of when we travelled, when we went to other jurisdictions and researched new correctional services methodology practice, new systems, new institutions in the youth area, in the adult area, in the industry area, in the agricultural area. We hit the road and took on the challenge of learning. When members stand in debate, those who have done the research hold the topic and deliver for taxpayers’ money, and those members who do not need to question their participation. It comes down to the old saying: ‘If you do not have anything positive to say in a debate, you should not say it’. I will leave that opposition strategy for the Leader of the Opposition to deal with. It looks like the same suits, but the same attitude is coming out after the latest reshuffle. We have seen that yesterday and today.
In our research, we took recognition of other jurisdictions. It is not about reinventing the wheel, as the member for Port Darwin used for an analogy, it was about what works. It was about dealing with the professionals in a number of different jurisdictions, and I thank those officers who participated in our research and made us feel welcome.
Alcohol and the community custody order is an issue and the member for Nelson, I believe, will raise that in the committee stage. This part of a community custody order is a decision of the court. The community custody order has to represent a mainstream legislative tool, and alcohol will not be a factor in offending behaviour for some people. I am confident the court will look at each issue in each case. Whether it is a tradie from the rural area who needs to deal with offending behaviour, or whether it is a person with alcohol abuse, they will be dealt with by the court. The pre-sentencing reports, the communication with the judiciary, the work with the legal fraternity, the intensive work to be conducted by Corrections will ensure this story is told. We are confident community custody orders will benefit the outcomes we are seeking in reducing recidivism, encouraging rehabilitation, and the delivery of training, education and work. The member for Nelson rightly says post-release support and jobs is an interesting link in the chain of reducing recidivism, and everyone in this House would agree with that.
These new orders, these instruments are making the connection with the community and with the system. It is what we call normalisation, so offenders, through these new orders, will be supported into good, strong, mainstream experiences and start to understand how to make better choices.
The member for Macdonnell has a great understanding. It is good to listen to a person with an understanding of remote areas, regional areas, and urban areas. The member for Macdonnell tabled her support in her contribution to the debate on the new era reform package, and also for the legislation before the House today.
The member for Macdonnell has a clear understanding of recidivist behaviour, and articulated that to the House and talked about the relevance and importance of the offenders’ contribution back to their community - which is the essence of this. This is about getting people back into the community and repatriating that community; making a difference in that community, not sitting in a custodial environment with very few opportunities to deal with offending behaviour, particularly the short-term prisoners.
The member for Macdonnell asked the honest question: what will happen if the CLP gets into power? The CLP policy is very clear. It was summed up and was quite shocking. I wrote this down and will probably never forget it. The member for Braitling, on 20 October 2010, said in this House: ‘If I was a prisons minister, I would build a big concrete hole and put all the bad criminals in there’. I have heard nothing since that. I raised it in estimates - still nothing, except talk from the Leader of the Opposition about a commercial television boot camp show which ran a few years ago. That is serious deficit in policy and I encourage the Country Liberals to examine their policy on Corrections and articulate it in far more sophisticated terms than that.
The member for Macdonnell gave a great example of what a community custody order or a community based order can deliver to a young person working at the RSPCA, experiencing mainstream, experiencing real work in real world conditions, experiencing that understanding and joy of looking after animals in that case but, in relation to the package, experiencing real education and awareness on the job in a real world environment.
The member for Katherine was an interesting contributor to the debate and opened the debate with his ‘been in the job for 30 seconds’, which reflected in his contribution to the debate. I acknowledge he probably did not have much time to research this; however, the door is open and you are welcome on the journey of the new era in Corrections in the Northern Territory. I am sure you have valuable offerings. Today there was not much of that. You went for the soft option, the media spin and the one-liners to attract media attention for your headline sensational-type approach and that delivered nought.
You touched on aspects of this legislation that are real. You started to talk about addressing the root cause of crime in the Northern Territory and question why people come to be in prison. You talked about alcohol as a contributing factor and about a tough approach on alcohol. You talked about recidivism. All those elements are what this legislation is addressing in this new era package and what we are seeking to deliver to disadvantaged Territorians who need to be given a new perspective on life. This is a great place and the opportunities are out there. Corrections is about maximising opportunities for those prisoners who come into our realm, also our Community Corrections clients.
You talked about the CLP dealing with the root causes. That is good; however, if the root causes are to be dealt with in a big concrete hole where all the bad criminals are, your policy is not going to deliver for the people of the Northern Territory, the taxpayer, or the future, member for Katherine. You then got back on track. You mentioned the removal of the deterrent factor, the protection of the community; however, you retreated to: ‘allow people to walk free’. These orders are way tougher than a prison sentence because they will be mandating rehabilitation, mandating training …
A member: No, you will not.
Mr McCARTHY: They will be a legislative tool to help address recidivism rates.
We are about new orders, regional initiatives, work camps, prison farms, and a new Northern Territory Correctional Services facility in Holtze. These represent a raft of measures that will impact on the causes of crime, on criminogenic behaviour and on the offending behaviour.
The member for Katherine touched on electronic surveillance and voice recognition to provide greater protection to the community and accountability for offending behaviour. He will probably lose sleep over that tonight when he realises he supported the legislation, and I thank him for that.
He talked about more correctional staff being needed. We are recruiting an additional 31 Community Corrections officers to be stationed across the Territory, member for Katherine, so you are right again. He raised a good question about unpaid staff and tried to be frivolous; however, the story is a good one because many police officers in our regional and remote areas are supportive of our new era package. If a police officer is engaged in surveillance, in supporting a correctional client, he or she will not necessarily be paid by Corrections, they will be paid by the NT Police. There is an example of a professional person within a community context as unpaid staff. When we look at government and our members who reflect a really good cross section of the Northern Territory community we get good input, we get positive input. In relation to this concept, we should be building elders and respected people. It is a hard word, member for Greatorex, respect. Respect people.
Mr Conlan: It is difficult to respect you.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan: He is right, Madam Speaker. It is very difficult to respect him.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting, thank you. You do not have the call.
Mr McCARTHY: These people are important in supporting people who have made the choice to change their lives. Elders and respected persons will be working together with Corrections in a volunteer capacity because they have already expressed …
Mr Conlan: With a drink in his hand.
Mr McCARTHY: You have a problem with that too?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr McCARTHY: You have a lot of problems, son.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, the member then started reading from the bill, which was good; I enjoyed that.
In relation to the member for Katherine’s comments on Alice Springs, let us talk about a couple of initiatives. Let us touch on our government working with the police, engaging a community safe strategy, developing safe houses, and opening the new juvenile detention centre. The Minister for Central Australia, with that important work around the youth hub - what a fantastic initiative in Central Australia! I wish I could get something like that in the Barkly. That is so positive …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: We will talk about the new era support accommodation centre to be built at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre for programs; the Enough is Enough alcohol reform; and the increase in rehabilitation beds and increase in the capacity of the non-government centre. Community support parties was touched on, and the millions of dollars worth of work they do in the Alice Springs community every year. What this new era of thinking is about, and the members opposite need to take notice of, is attaching training to existing initiatives. We have some fabulous things already happening in Corrections, and now it is about making that fusion. Community support parties in Alice Springs are operating everything from whipper snippers to bobcats to tip trucks. We are now attaching accredited training to those initiatives, and skilling up people to make those better choices when they complete their sentences. They are a few initiatives I thought I would touch on because the member for Katherine, once again - negative, negative, negative. These are really good initiatives in Alice Springs. I visit Alice Springs regularly; it is a great place. I feel safe there. Government is about doing things for Alice Springs, and they are a few examples.
The member for Katherine glossed over the orders. It was a pity he did not have an understanding of this legislation but, most unfortunately, he did not have any new ideas.
We are dealing with increasing numbers in Correctional Services - the member for Katherine put out the challenge - you are right. I meet with NT Correctional Services officers all the time and with the POA quarterly. The discussion is always about the fantastic work they are doing in very trying conditions - the Berrimah Correctional Centre. Everyone is supportive of a new Correctional Services facility in the Top End. Everyone is supportive of a new, innovative, state-of-the-art facility that will deliver better outcomes.
The member for Greatorex talked about a building - it is talking about efficiencies, and not only workplace efficiencies, but efficiencies in delivering better education, rehabilitation, and training. Maybe you need to come on board and learn about that because it is an interesting topic. If you take the time you will be better off in the debate.
The member for Port Darwin gave some very challenging contributions to the debate, as usual, and started the debate with therapeutic programs. We use therapeutic programs; we value therapeutic programs. We also value rehabilitation, training, and education in our new era of thinking. We are, in this new thinking, starting to apply better educational practices to all aspects to deal with English as a Second Language, with culturally appropriate protocols, with group programs, and to look at rolling programs. We are dealing with on-the-job training and accredited training. We have started to work within existing systems as well as develop new systems.
There was a very good challenge and question on the definition of the community custody orders, and the difference. No difference, suggested the member for Port Darwin. Being an educated person and a lawyer, you will understand this. I can get you these explanations because you would understand. However, I will, for the House, outline the big difference. The big difference relates to the concept of a suspended sentence. I went on a learning curve about how that was a limiting factor in a legislative tool which was not delivering better outcomes. This is part of the incredible work the Department of Justice has done - many hours of intensive work to look at how we can get better outcomes for the judicial system. Today, as this passes through the House, we will be able to start that communication process, that education process, and lobbying of the judicial system to deliver.
I will read from some of my notes. A home detention order, section 44 of the Sentencing Act, can be imposed on an offender if the court considers a term of imprisonment is appropriate, and that it is also appropriate to suspend it on the condition the offender reside at a particular place. A home detention order can also be subject to the condition that the offender wear, or have attached, a monitoring device and be subject to electronic monitoring. Also, the court can impose such conditions as it sees fit and this may include programs to address the offending behaviour but, generally, the court does not make such an order. It is understood the courts are reluctant to impose further conditions such as undertaking rehabilitation programs unless it is expressly stated they should do so in the legislation.
A community custody order, unlike the home detention order, is not a suspended sentence; it is a day-for-day imprisonment in the community. The electronic monitoring condition is part of a package of compulsory and optional conditions that make up the community custody order such as programs addressing driver safety, drink-driving and alcohol and drug misuse. A community custody order is designed to address the offender’s criminal behaviour and factors contributing to his ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not trying to be cute, I am genuinely asking if you are able to lay that document on the table so I can take it away and read it.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes.
Mr Elferink: Thank you, I appreciate that.
Madam SPEAKER: When he is finished with the document.
Mr McCARTHY: The community custody order is designed to address the offender’s criminal behaviour and factors contributing to his or her offence. The community custody order also mandates that an offender report for a minimum of 12 hours per week to undertake community work, or eight hours of community work and the balance undertaking a prescribed program or counselling and treatment. The home detention order does not - I will skip that because I am running out of time. Once again, these legislative implements are stepping the pace up, driving accountability and normalising opportunities and experience for people who need to see the other side of life.
A community custody order is not a suspended sentence because the offender is serving his or her sentence of imprisonment of up to 12 months duration in the community. It is day-for-day imprisonment. The community custody order and community based order are designed to address the offender’s behaviour and factors contributing to his or her offending by providing a package of compulsory and optional conditions that make up the community based order or community custody order such as programs addressing driver safety, drink-driving, and alcohol or other drug misuse. The community custody order also mandates a minimum of 12 hours work per week, or eight hours of community work, and the balance undertaking a prescribed program. Community work can be an optional condition for the community based order. However, the community work is not a condition of the suspended sentence. There are some significant differences there.
The new era is making a better connection between the judicial system, Correctional Services and the community. They will be able to see the links where they are mandated into programs, where they will be experiencing real work opportunities, where they will go home and feel good about themselves, where they will show their children what they have achieved in a remote community, for instance.
There is a good Barkly Work Camp anecdote. I am collecting them. A group worked with the RSL in preparation for an event. It was not only event management; there was also much physical and maintenance work around the Cenotaph and other buildings. One of the offenders said to Ann Wilson, a stalwart of the RSL and great worker and member of the RSL: ‘When I get out I want to work for the RSL’. Ann Wilson answered the prisoner: ‘That is very good but this is volunteer work; you do not get paid’. The prisoner said: ‘I do not care what it is, I want to work here because I have learnt things here, I felt good here, and I can now see there are choices’. That is just one anecdote. I have many and there are plenty to come.
I was disappointed the member for Port Darwin used the sensational 13 accredited training outcomes. You have to debate accredited training. To put …
Mr Elferink: I said three, by the way.
Mr McCARTHY: … a negative spin on those outcomes is unfortunate, because those prisoners - those 13 outcomes - need positive reinforcement not negative reinforcement. In 2010-11, 691 participants are in accredited training. If anyone understands accredited training, then …
Mr Elferink: What is your completion?
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I move that the minister be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, thank you, honourable members.
Six hundred and ninety one participants in accredited training with plans to get as many results as we can. With our revision of the educational model and curriculum delivery, our continued reinforcement of training and education, our lobbying to get more and more prisoners into training and education in very trying conditions in the Berrimah Correctional Centre, we are experiencing challenges; however, it is a great way to go forward.
The member for Blain’s contribution to the debate shocked me. It was very negative. He did not elaborate on CLP policy, but I can elaborate for him. It is about putting all the bad criminals in that big concrete hole. The member for Blain has much work to do with his team on that side if they are going to put together any credible policy around Correctional Services. When he got back on track was my biggest shock. Those on the other side do not seem to understand the holistic Northern Territory community. You have to look at our Correctional Services system and the challenges we have with the offender cohort in those custodial institutions.
The member for Blain seems to be stereotyping Corrections in the mainstream. The Country Liberals always talk about numeracy and literacy. I have a vision of the classroom with the smart board and the model prisoners sitting there with pen and paper learning literacy and numeracy. The Country Liberals have much to learn and you will learn that when you embark on good, proactive research. That means getting your hands dirty. Look at what we are doing in Correctional Services, look at the people at the coalface doing the work taking up the challenges, because that is what you need to see to get anywhere near the basis of good policy development.
Regarding the member for Blain, the new era, and his problem with semantics, what has our government been doing over the last three years in new era policy and legislation? A mountain of work has been going on and the member for Nelson can testify to that because he has been a positive contributor. The mountain of work has been to look at a system which has not been reducing recidivism. We can all agree with that, and that work had to start somewhere. We looked at existing systems and changes we could make on the ground, and they have been considerable.
We then looked at developing those opportunities, which took us to these legislative tools. That is why we are in this House passing new legislation to give the judicial community, Northern Territory Corrections, and our community better outcomes. From that, we are building infrastructure and I encourage members opposite to visit the Barkly Work Camp. Next is Katherine - a work camp prison farm - an interesting concept where work is going on with Charles Darwin University as we speak. We will be looking at proving to our community these initiatives work when we start rolling them out through regional areas.
That work has not being sitting idle; it represents new era thinking and delivery. The major infrastructure component of the new era thinking had to relate to the Top End because the ageing facility at Berrimah has passed its use-by date. It no longer has the support of our Correctional Services officers and no longer delivers the outcomes we need. We are building a new, innovative, purpose-built facility that will incorporate forensic mental health facilities and offer real opportunities in turning this unacceptable recidivism rate around. That is going on as we speak and is an enormous body of work. I am proud to be a part of a team delivering that for the Northern Territory.
I have one significant submission I received on this new era journey from the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. It is NAAJA’s response to the new era in Corrections and I would like to share some of that. I quote from the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency submission of 23 February 2011:
The submission is extensive, but I quote from one more paragraph:
NAAJA has some very strong challenges for government and we are working through those. It has endorsed the new era in corrections thinking, our new era in corrections policy and our legislative instruments. I have had positive dialogue with NAAJA about communicating this to the judicial system so Corrections personnel, in the pre-sentencing phase, the solicitors and lawyers that work around these clients, and the judges and magistrates that deal with these clients all understand these legislative instruments are new. They are not totally innovative; they are being used in other jurisdictions; however, for the Northern Territory they are new innovative tools to deal with an offending cohort which needs a hand up not a handout. That hand up is straightforward when you examine it.
As a former teacher in the Northern Territory of over 30 years, it is quite a shock to many of our Department of Justice staff and NT Correctional Services staff when I visit the prisons and receive many cheerio calls, many hellos and much recognition from prisoners who are ex-students. There is an understanding now that they have a minister who, not only has drive and enthusiasm for this, but also has taken on another responsibility with regard to my new era in the Northern Territory.
I ask all members to support this legislation as it goes through because you are sharing in this new era. This new era is about delivering for our most disadvantaged. We can already see from work within the existing systems that we are on the right track. I feel confident that, as we start to turn around the recidivism rate, we will impact on the holistic picture of better community safety.
We are all in this together. It is an important day for the legislation, but one of many important days this government has created and is determined to fulfil. The language in this debate needs to be tempered. There is my offer of research and investigation into better ways. I am prepared to take on ideas from others. I also expect those on the other side to participate in this debate with honesty and a level of enthusiasm. It is a story I want to tell my grandchildren and great grandchildren, as I am sure others do. When it comes to the crunch of: ‘What did you do as a politician?’ I might start the story of the new era in corrections and see how many moons ago it ends up and what it achieved.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to be here. I thank all members for their contribution, the Department of Justice staff who have worked so hard, and the Community Corrections staff who have worked so hard thus far. They are all very keen and committed to the journey ahead as we continue to embark upon the Northern Territory new era in corrections.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I understand you were going to table a document.
Mr McCARTHY: I need this document. It has my notes scribbled all over it.
Mr Elferink: That is not what you promised.
Mr McCARTHY: I will table it, but we have to go to committee stage.
Madam SPEAKER: You need it for the committee stage? All right can you …
Mr Elferink: That is good …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Port Darwin. Are you able to get a clean copy of that organised, minister?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: We will have a clean copy tabled.
Mr ELFERINK: While we are at it, Madam Speaker, the letter from NAAJA he quoted from, I wonder if he can get a clean copy of that as well.
Madam SPEAKER: The report you had from NAAJA, are you willing to table that or a version of it?
Mr McCARTHY: I have notes scribbled all over this …
Mr Elferink: A clean copy.
Madam SPEAKER: If you are able to.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, I will get a clean one, Madam Speaker.
Mr Elferink: I would like to place on the record my thanks to the minister for his openness.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 (Serial 167) together with a schedule of amendments No 66 circulated by the Minister for Correctional Services, Mr McCarthy.
Clauses 1 to 21, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Chair! I did not know whether you were going to ask if we would take the bill as a whole, and I was …
Madam CHAIR: We cannot take the bill as a whole because we are working through amendments.
Mr WOOD: I have the amendments. How do I ask the general questions?
Madam CHAIR: Do you have questions in relation to clauses 1 to 21? Do you have questions in relation to the schedule of amendments, member for Nelson? We are working through a logical progression here. Maybe that is not logical to you, member for Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! Perhaps I can assist? If the minister would be willing to take questions in a more general sense from the member for Nelson, this side of the House will not object. Whilst we are dealing with clauses 1 to 21, a wider-ranging debate with a little latitude from the House may assist the member for Nelson and the minister in the process.
Madam CHAIR: I hear what you are saying, member for Port Darwin; however, we are trying to work through a fairly logical process where we have specific amendments to be made. That is why we are working through this particular process rather than having an open forum for questions.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, if the House is okay with us moving these amendments, as they are fairly simple and people have looked at them, can we have questions after that?
Madam CHAIR: It makes it difficult, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: I can indicate to the member for Nelson that we will not be particularly stickling about procedure if his question range. The Speaker has often ruled the minister has certain latitude in his answers.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. I can work within the parameters you are setting out; however, I was expecting to deal with it as we did with the bills yesterday, but ...
Madam CHAIR: They are different, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: If you give me a little latitude within the clauses, I can get there.
Madam CHAIR: We will try to work through that then. Member for Nelson, do you have any questions in relation to clauses 1 to 21?
Mr WOOD: No.
Madam CHAIR: No. We have agreed to clauses 1 to 21.
Clause 22:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.1. Clause 22 corrects an omission in the bill and amends the regulation-making power in section 101(3) of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. As the amendment to section 101 in clause 22 is currently worded, section 101(3)(e) to (g) will refer to community work orders and community based orders, but should also refer to community custody orders. Clause 66.1 of the schedule will correct this so regulations can be made with respect to community based orders, and community custody orders can be made under new sections 101(3)(e) to (g) of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 31, by leave, taken together.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, you have a question?
Mr WOOD: I would like to deal with clause 25, please.
Madam CHAIR: Certainly. If you would like to put questions to the minister, now is the appropriate time to do so.
Mr WOOD: Clause 25 deals with approved monitoring devices and approved voice recognition systems. My questions will be a little general. What will be the cost of approved monitoring devices which, in laymen’s terms, will be a bracelet? What cost will this program be to the department?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, you will get a general answer as it is out to tender, but the estimate comes in at $1.2m over two years.
Mr WOOD: How will the bracelets be monitored and where will they be monitored?
Mr McCARTHY: There are two aspects in relation to electronic surveillance and the bracelets. One is a physical bracelet fitted to an offender, and the other is a unit which exists in the home that gives an electronic fence, so to speak, which is the area defined in the order. That is monitored in two levels. The first level with Community Corrections, and the second level with the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, where a control room will be set up. There are two levels of reaction to that.
Phone technology transfers signals and a Correctional Services officer, a probation officer, a parole officer, the pager or a computer in the control room will alert any breach in that technology.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. You said there were two types - I did not realise although I had a briefing recently. There will be a type of electronic device around the property or around the house, is that what you are saying? Are you going to have a bracelet where you can move to and from your property?
Mr McCARTHY: No, they are one and the same. The bracelet is attached to the person and a unit sets up that boundary. If it is within the home you are defined to remain in, that picks up a signal which gives you a defined perimeter. If you are to go further than that perimeter, the signal is sent to the officers monitoring that client. It is the same technology. One is a bracelet, the other one is - layman speak, it reminds me of our mobile mike, our FM mike with our PA in Tennant Creek. You have a microphone with the rabbit ears on the amplifier which send the signal around.
Mr WOOD: So I understand it better, if that person is going to work they will only be able to go at a certain time because they will go outside the beam around the house and will have to come in at a certain time. Is that how it is meant to work?
Mr McCARTHY: That is correct. This is part of the structure this delivers around an offender’s life. It delivers accountability as well. If you are going to a training or rehabilitation program or going to work, you will have defined parameters to work within. If you do not turn up for work or do not attend the program, or if there are significant delays, you are going to be asked to please explain. The system kicks into gear.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you said this is connected to wireless. If you are at places like Yuendumu, Wadeye - there were other places you mentioned where this could operate – would it will be restricted to the range mobile phones can pick up in that area?
Mr McCARTHY: Good question. The remote technology is a little further out. The electronic surveillance technology we have been discussing is for the urban areas. We are talking about the roll-out of that in Darwin and Alice Springs for Correctional Services clients.
In the remote areas, we are talking about a similar but different technology - voice recognition technology. That will be available for Correctional Services clients who return to a regional or remote area where a telephone is hooked up to this technology. It could be at the police station, it could be at the council office, it could be in a person’s home or it could be a public phone. That gives the Community Corrections staff, and officers supervising that client, an extra level of accountability to phone in and ensure that person is where they have agreed to be. Likewise, that client can phone in to report to Community Corrections. That will complement the existing system of visits, face-to-face and interface with Community Corrections. I am keen on that technology because it raises the bar of accountability for the Community Corrections client.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I will be interested to see how the approved voice recognition system goes because we do not use it at the moment. On a practical aspect of the bracelets; these were tried some years ago by the previous government and one of the concerns was reliability and the question of lightning. Is there any danger with people wearing these during a storm? Would they break down easily when you have electronic interference from a tropical storm? Are they reliable in those conditions?
Mr McCARTHY: A good Territory question, member for Nelson. First, they have a battery backup; an added fail-safe for this technology. Second, it is sophisticated technology that has advanced over the years. We are looking at the latest and also looking at other jurisdictions. We have been doing research in South Australia and New South Wales. We are shopping around for the best product.
Regarding the question about electrical activity and electrical storms, I do not have the technical expertise to respond now. I would be able to get that information and, once again, the famous word ‘briefing’. Let us get Mr Middlebrook, whom you know, and Correctional Services, to talk to us about that.
Mr WOOD: That is all the questions I have on that section, Madam Chair. What clause were you going to?
Madam CHAIR: We were about to move to accept clauses 23 to 31.
Mr WOOD: I would like to talk on clause 28, please.
Mr ELFERINK: That is where I am going.
Mr WOOD: You can start.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. Minister, I am wondering if those are the clean copies promised, or are they still coming?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, well if we can keep this process going.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. I would like the opportunity to read those whilst this process is going on and can hand over to the member for Nelson whilst I look at what you have. It would be convenient for me, but I am happy to do it without it.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, member for Port Darwin, I have this folder which I have been working off for weeks and I am not going to let it go until we have concluded. I will offer what I promised.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. I thought there were clean copies available. Perhaps not, at this stage.
Minister, the assertion you made with regard to clause 28, the suspended sentencing not having the same latitude as what you are proposing, the expression, ‘as the court thinks fit’, is in the Sentencing Act, from memory, 10 to 15 times at least. It includes in relation to the conditions which may be imposed in the instance a suspended sentence is imposed, namely section 40, suspended sentence of imprisonment. This deals with imprisonment terms of not more than five years. I will go to (2):
That could only be described as a general power of discretion applied to the courts with few limitations. In fact, the only limitation is the five year limitation. How is what you are doing different to a general power of discretion granted to a court?
Mr McCARTHY: I will start this conversation and then get some legal advice. I will start the conversation with where I came in to this, which was the suspended sentence was being used and not mandating any programs, rehabilitation or any community work or community involvement. I came into a system where it was not happening …
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. You do not need legal advice now?
Mr McCARTHY: If you do not mind, I am still speaking, thank you, member for Port Darwin. This was one of many work tasks we entered into and I asked how we could do it better. I said we needed to gain the confidence of the judicial system and the confidence of the community. In legal terms, we framed that opportunity with regard to these two new orders. I am advised by the judicial system, by NAAJA for instance, that this is definitely the way to go and this will deliver the outcomes government is seeking for better rehabilitation, better education and better participation in the community.
In saying that and addressing the banter from the other side about being soft on crime, the challenge is that this is a much tougher pathway than a traditional prison sentence. That is the reality of what I have created and I am very proud of that. It is going to be very much a challenging road ahead. That is where I talk about gaining the confidence of the judicial system to be on the same road and, with our work in Corrections, gaining the confidence of the prisoner, the offender, as well.
I inherited something that, semantically, you have read out which was on paper. However, we have created something better. We have a better tool, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand what you are trying to say. In fact, you said it in your summing up quite succinctly as you read from your notes: the courts have not used these facilities before. I presume that is because those things, until now, have not been provided. Why does it require a legislative change to provide courses when you could provide them under the current sentencing regime, advise the court those courses are available and, then, the court can use its general power of discretion rather than needing specific legislation? I am unsure of your thinking in having to create specific legislation when a general power of discretion is available.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, I am going to set you some homework. It will be on the public record. Your homework is: I want you to research the judicial precedent in R v Quinn. That judicial precedent said the courts cannot impose community work with a suspended sentence. This was my original challenge. I took to my Caucus and Cabinet colleagues, and the Chief Minister, these people have to be in work. We have to have people experiencing real world outcomes. That will develop self-esteem, which is really the essence of reducing recidivism. That related to work, so we needed a judicial tool to do that.
We have done two things. First, we have created an instrument which can mandate community work. We have built additional layers onto that, which represents good outcomes in rehabilitation programs, training programs, counselling, and other important elements of being a good citizen in the community. For many of these clients it is possibly the first time they have engaged in that type of activity in the community for many years.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you for that piece of homework, minister. You never mentioned R v Quinn at any point in the introduction to this legislation. I would have expected, as I specifically raised the issue during the second reading debate, you would have addressed it. Now we have this, can you inform me whether that is a Territory case?
Mr McCARTHY: I have consulted my legal advisor - it is a Northern Territory Supreme Court decision.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. That would have been very useful in your summation.
Mr WOOD: Minister, clause 39E, under Division 4A, is Statutory conditions of order. There is also 39F, Conditions of order imposed by the court, which says a person may be required to reside at a specified place. Could it be the case, especially in an Aboriginal community, that the director or the court may require a person to move to a different community? If that was required, what would be the arrangement? Would their travel costs be paid? What is behind that clause? Is it just that they reside at their house, or does it mean a court could decide they have to go to another place which might be, for cultural or safety reasons, a better place to go?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, there are several stages. First, a place is determined by the court with the judicial representation and the offender. If they want to vary that, they take that back to the court. There is continual dialogue managed by NT Correctional Services.
Your example is a good one because I am encouraging people from regional or remote areas to look at opportunities outside their own community. That will mean movement, opportunities for employment and real prosperity. These things are negotiated in the process. If we look at a general view, where these are offering really good opportunities and outcomes, the courts will look upon them favourably. If it were for cultural reasons, the courts will take that into account and look at the sensitivities. If it were for frivolous reasons, the system will mandate the outcome.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. From a practical point of view, normal community work orders we have today are sometimes done in conjunction with the council. The hours someone will be required to work in the community, under the community based orders or community custody orders, would more than likely, but not necessarily, be done in conjunction with the council because it has those types of jobs available. Has the government discussed the expansion of this program with local government to see if it is willing to work with the government on these programs?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, a great question which gives me an opportunity to share with the House the work our government has been doing. The Minister for Local Government has embraced this at the top level. I have been working with shire services managers at a grassroots level, and other elements of the community that can deliver outcomes of real work. When I talk about real work, I mean project work.
We are also exploring these options with the Barkly Work Camp and what will be the Katherine work camp and prison farm. There are organisations, including private enterprise, that are very interested in giving prisoners a go and giving prisoners an opportunity which I have been working with closely.
One example you may be interested in was talking to the shire services manager at Yuendumu. That person said: ‘We need that extra structure around supporting these people if you want me to provide them with meaningful work and opportunities’. We have created 31 new positions with significant government resources to enable us to look at that across the Territory and target some very strong pilot areas to get this system moving. That was one example. In that community there was a media centre, an arts centre, and an old people’s program which all wanted to offer support. We have matched extra Community Corrections support to make that happen.
We have also looked at resourcing those fundamentals that were frustrating elements of working within the existing system - no PPE gear, no personal protection equipment. If that is a barrier, let us solve it. We have gone into that arena and are now able to provide equipment for these designated programs we have set up. It is a really good outcome. On top of that, having a very dynamic director of Community Corrections, and a very experienced person who you know, that person is looking closely now at opportunities to increase hours of work. If we have unemployed clients, we can start to increase their work because they have opportunities that will deliver better outcomes for them. Other people may be employed and will be specifically doing community work repatriating their community. It is starting to gather momentum and structure as we move through it. That is why we are here today ensuring we are getting the legislative tools agreed to in this House so we can make this happen.
Mr ELFERINK: Can I interrupt for one second please, Gerry? Minister, I am having trouble finding that citation. Can you give me the citation for the case you mentioned earlier?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, I missed that?
Mr ELFERINK: I was wondering, that case you mentioned earlier; may I have the citation for it. I am having trouble finding it on the Northern Territory Supreme Court website.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, I am advised it is not connected to this bill. It is about home detention orders not community work.
Mr ELFERINK: It is not associated with this bill?
Mr McCARTHY: I apologise for that.
Mr ELFERINK: I raised this issue in the briefing, minister. This was not mentioned during the briefing. It has confused me a little.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, I started to explain the frustration I had about the court not being able to mandate work in a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence of imprisonment is available to be imposed where the court sentences an offender to a term of imprisonment of up to five years and considers it desirable to suspend the sentence - section 41 of the Sentencing Act.
A suspended sentence is a custodial sentencing order, whereas the community based order is a non-custodial sentencing order that may be imposed whether or not the court records a conviction. I repeat: ‘community based order’ - one of our new orders.
A community custody order is not a suspended sentence because the offender is serving his or her sentence of imprisonment of up to 12 months duration in the community. It is a day-for-day imprisonment. In addition, although a court has the power to impose such conditions as it sees fit, on a suspended sentence it generally does not impose conditions of supervision to undertake programs or treatment to address offending behaviour. It is understood the courts are reluctant to impose such further conditions unless it is expressly stated in the legislation they should do so.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the same briefing note you read before; the one you promised to table and are now withholding. Could you now table that briefing note, please?
Mr McCARTHY: Out of my folder?
Mr ELFERINK: The one you tucked under your folder when it was handed to you before.
Hallelujah, we have the briefing note, thank you. You say there is reluctance on the part of the courts unless it is entrenched in legislation. Why do you have the impression there is reluctance on the part of the courts unless it is entrenched in legislation when a general power of discretion is entrenched in legislation?
Mr McCARTHY: Because that is the way it was operating in the community. I asked us to step that up because I wanted to mandate work and I saw the need, as this government does, for getting people into meaningful work. I have used another legislative tool in this amendment to achieve that objective.
Mr ELFERINK: That is cool but gets us back to square one. So I understand exactly what has happened, is the case you quoted before relevant to the legislation before the House?
Mr McCARTHY: No, member for Port Darwin, I apologise. It was in relation to home detention.
Mr ELFERINK: Do you see how this makes my brain hurt talking to you sometimes?
Mr McCARTHY: Let us get nasty, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I raised this issue in the briefing and there was no mention of any subsequent court case. Subsequent to that time, I have not been informed of any cases that pertain to this. I walk into this Chamber fully believing my position is correct. I am then told this case exists so I say: ‘I am going to look it up’, and, whilst struggling to look it up because I cannot find a citation for it, I ask you for the citation. I still have not received that but am told: ‘Oh, by the way it does not relate to this piece of legislation’.
This takes us back to the issue I raised before. You have a general power of discretion across a raft of legislation, not just the Sentencing Act, and this reinforces my criticism that this is nothing more than window dressing to suggest you are doing something new when the powers to achieve what you want to achieve have always, and continue to, exist in other legislative instruments.
The fact these programs have not always been available has possibly made courts reluctant to refer people to programs which do not exist. I do not blame them. However, you only require a change of policy to achieve your outcomes not a change of legislation. A change of legislation is mere window dressing when the powers have existed and continue to exist and you, by a simple act of policy change, can bring about your desired outcomes without us having to listen to you quote cases which are inappropriate.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, may I respond to the member for Port Darwin?
Madam CHAIR: Yes, minister.
Mr McCARTHY: First, member for Port Darwin, I do not know what apology means to you but I tried to support your inquiry and asked my advisors if we had an example. I apologise that the example was not entirely correct. It does relate to interesting legislation but was not entirely correct. However, you can continue to play your semantic games and be nasty. Watch your blood pressure, by the way.
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: For those who want to laugh, the member for Port Darwin sent me an e-mail yesterday. He was concerned about my blood pressure. In Question Time he commented on the colour of my skin and was very concerned about my blood pressure, which I appreciate. Member for Port Darwin, what is your blood pressure?
Mr Elferink: It is 110 on 70.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: We are creating a legislative instrument to make things cleaner and tidier. Why bother dressing up a suspended sentence when I encountered it as a frustration in delivering work and outcomes I found existed throughout correctional services institutions in Australia that were paying dividends in reducing recidivism. Why go back? You can play semantics and be the smartest kid in the room. I am about making a difference. I encourage everyone in this House to get on that journey. We have done exactly that. We have created two new orders and will now embark upon a process of educating the judicial system, the community, correctional services and fellow parliamentarians so these two new orders, these instruments, deliver what government wants - to make real meaningful change in disadvantaged people’s lives.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin, is this a question within clauses 23 to 31.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, we are talking about amendments to the Sentencing Act, which is precisely on topic.
Minister, I am not trying to denigrate you. I gave you an opportunity to talk about the programs you are bringing forward which did not exist previously. My only complaint and issue with this is the powers of the courts to refer people to these programs have always existed, and continue to exist, across a raft of legislation not just the Sentencing Act. All I am saying, minister, is we do not have to go through the palaver of introducing a new bill and the window dressing of a new era of legislation when the laws you need exist. It is as simple as that. If you think by someone running into your office saying: ‘We have this great new idea for the new direction, minister, sign off on this’, you do not have to bring some critical thinking on the people making those suggestions, you have to ask yourself what you are doing as a minister.
Critical thinking is all I am asking for. There is insufficient critical thinking demonstrated by the fact that whatever is shoved in your hand you reproduce, including court cases that do not relate to the legislation before the House.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I would like to respond to that because, once again, the member for Port Darwin has it in reverse. Member for Port Darwin, it did not work like that. It was me seeking out people like you with a legal background to ensure we get this right. I started the journey of these two legislative tools then took it to my Caucus and Cabinet colleagues. By the hell was it not debated! It was a great and ferocious debate. We agreed we are going to make a difference. It was me, as minister, and I am proud of that.
I do not have a law degree like some in this room; I go to people with law degrees. When I talk to Community Corrections clients I say: ‘If you are interested in transport, go to a transport operator who makes $1m. They are the person you attach yourself to’. Member for Port Darwin, what we are doing with our Regional Integrated Transport Strategy in places like Yuendumu, Alice Springs and Borroloola is starting to make these links.
I wanted a clean and tidy legislative instrument to ensure it was going to happen. I started this. I have had Department of Justice people working diligently on this for a long time. Now we have it to the House and, as I said, this is an important day. Bring it on! We are talking about the Northern Territory and real outcomes, not egos and personalities.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, is your question between clauses 23 to 31?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I was working in that area but debate shifted. I was dealing with community based orders, Madam Chair.
Minister, for both community based orders and the community custody orders, a person cannot use this section of the act if they have committed a sexual offence or a violent offence. What happens in the case of a DVO? For instance, a person might have a DVO but not been sentenced. While they have a DVO, they might have an offence which is not sexual or violent. Will that stop them receiving a community based order or community custody order?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I have been advised it is the offence that is being dealt with in the court. If the offender comes into court and the nature of that offending relates to a sexual offence or a violent offence, they cannot be included in these new orders.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, minister. A DVO does not mean you have committed an offence; it can be an arrangement between two partners who have not gone to court to be kept separate. However, a person with a DVO who has done something criminal which fits within the guidelines - it is not sexual, it is not violent, it is a crime which could be considered for up to 12 months imprisonment - although a person has not been charged - they have been given one by a policeman or a magistrate - does that DVO stop them being given a community based order or community custody order?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, if you present in a court of law with a DVO, the conditions around that DVO would be explored regarding the opportunity to be given one of the new orders.
Mr WOOD: Are you saying before the court makes a decision it might look at the circumstances around the DVO? I have raised in parliament previously whether DVOs necessarily mean there was violence. As we know, sometimes there is agreement to keep people apart, and I wonder whether we should look again at the way DVOs are classified; whether something was violent, psychologically violent, or whether it was keeping two people having an argument apart. I wanted to see whether a DVO necessarily excluded people from partaking in these orders.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, that case would be examined looking at the nature of the DVO and the relationship to the victim, and physical spaces where people reside, workplaces and so forth. Community Corrections would make those referrals and it would be decided on by the court.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. My next question relates to both community orders and community custody orders. Under the New South Wales Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 section 175 refers to Mandatory conditions for intensive correctional orders. Section (i) and section (j) say - these are mandatory. I will read the sub-heading first:
Subsection (i) says:
Subsection (j) says:
I do not see that as mandatory.
In the bill, clause 39F under Division 4A, Conditions of order imposed by court – general says:
(1) The court must impose at least one (but may impose more than one) of the following conditions on the order.
Why is it not mandatory as part of our orders. It is not mandatory. It says the court may impose at least one, whereas in New South Wales it gives you a long list of mandatory conditions, two of which deal with prohibiting people from using drugs and the other one to ensure they submit to breath testing, urine analysis, etcetera. I am wondering why we have not included it as strictly in our legislation as New South Wales has.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I have been advised in the Territory we have been influenced by the Victorian model. We have based much of our thinking on the Victorian model which relates to not replicating all features of imprisonment. Prisoners are prohibited from drinking alcohol while in full-time custody, regardless of whether it is a contributing factor to the offender’s behaviour or an ‘at risk’ factor. A community custody order, while being a term of imprisonment, is to be served in the community. It is not designed to replicate all the features of imprisonment.
When providing the pre-sentence report to the court, the director of Corrections will recommend the court impose a condition the offender is not permitted to purchase or consume alcohol, if required, because alcohol was a contributing factor to the offending and if it is a particular risk factor for the offender. Alcohol might not always be a contributing factor to the offending, so it is not always required to be imposed. Again, it is not intended, in all aspects, that a community custody order is designed to replicate serving a sentence in full-time custody. In relation to illegal drugs, that would stand within existing legislation.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I am referring to what I received during the briefing. We might be getting two things mixed up here. The New South Wales legislation clearly states you should not use drugs, obtain drugs or abuse drugs. It also says you submit to a breath test. It is not saying you should not drink; however, it might be saying you are not allowed to drink too much - you should not be over the legal drinking limit. There are certain conditions, one of which is not saying you cannot drink, but you will be required to submit to a breath test, urine analysis, or other medically approved test procedure to detect alcohol or drug use.
Are you saying that exists in current legislation and does not need to be part of a community based order or custody order? Are you saying there is no requirement to have a blood test, drug test, urine analysis, or breath test under our existing legislation?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, it is on an as-needs basis. The court determines the conditions around the order. If alcohol is seen as a contributing factor to the offending behaviour the offender will incur mandatory random testing. If it is alcohol and other drugs, the offender will incur alcohol and drug testing. It is on an as-needs basis related to the offending and determined by the department of Corrections, the pre-sentencing report and the magistrate in the sentence imposed.
Mr WOOD: I understand that and, during the briefing, I thought we were dealing with people who had committed an offence. Some of those people might be in for only 75 days. Part of the punishment may be you cannot drink alcohol. In this case the court can impose that under clause 39F(1)(c):
It can be put in. However, in the debate about community based orders or community custody orders, we are moving people out of prison. When people were in prison, whether they had a drinking problem or not, they were not allowed to drink. To some extent, by moving them out of the big walls they have the freedom to work, they have to perform community orders, and I thought one of those things might have been people cannot drink.
That may be the court’s decision, and this is based more on the Victorian legislation; however, we looked up the New South Wales legislation after it was commented on during the briefing - we did our homework - and the mandatory section for intensive correction orders has that difference. I would not expect someone who has not been banned from drinking to be drunk, and New South Wales is looking at that by including that breath test and urine analysis as a mandatory requirement by the court whereas we are not asking for that.
That may be not so much a loophole but, knowing the Territory has a problem with grog, that would have been a good thing to have left in because the court may have said: ‘We are not banning you from alcohol; however, if we test you, you will not be over the limit’. That is what New South Wales is saying. It is the same as us when it comes to additional conditions which may be imposed by sentencing, and one of the New South Wales conditions prohibits the offender consuming alcohol. Our bill is similar: the offender must not consume or purchase alcohol or a drug.
The New South Wales legislation is a little tighter when it comes to misusing alcohol. It is not saying you could not use it, but misusing it. We have to keep a certain element of punishment in this otherwise people will see it as a soft outcome. There has to be a certain amount of work imposed; I will come back to the work side of it in a moment.
They are my comments on alcohol. I do not know if you want to comment any more. I have an understanding of where you are coming from
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I can fully understand your position. Let me tell you from personal experience, the Department of Justice legal people are very humanitarian. I was much tougher. They have crafted this into holistic legislation which deals with everyone in our community. I had the impression of the tradie in the rural area on the wrong side of the law, ends up on an order but continues to work, does not reoffend and, in that time, can consume alcohol because alcohol was not a contributing factor. I share your concern that this may prove to be a fault in our legislation. All I can offer you is, like all legislation, we will review this. If we determine that is a factor holding back a very progressive new era initiative, government will address it and bring it back to this House.
Mr WOOD: In relation to work, one of the criticisms of community work orders existing today is it is a nice weekend out at Freds Pass Reserve mowing the lawn. How is this work going to be monitored in such a way that the community, which expects that person on a community custody order, can still do their normal work? A plumber can still do his plumbing and an electrician can do his electrical work but will be required to do at least eight hours a week? My understanding is they can do eight hours a week and, if they are unemployed, up to 20 hours a week, is that correct?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes.
Mr WOOD: That will be community work. What guarantee do I have from the government that the person will not be sitting under the mango tree at Freds Pass or the Tennant Creek recreational sporting area? What will be happening to ensure people see someone working hard not wrecking the lawn mower? I know the tricks of the trade. If you drive the lawn mower into 6 foot high grass and it burns out, you sit there for the rest of the day waiting for someone to turn up with another one. What will be there to ensure the community work is real work and people are not using it as a nice, restful weekend? That is probably when most people will be doing that work.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, good question. We are building several layers into that. For a person who has existing employment, that will continue. They will be doing work above and beyond their normal work. The only way we can demonstrate accountability is through Community Corrections supervision, links with the community and the community organisation hosting that worker. That is what we are about in building our 31 new positions. Also, there are additional positions I have not talked about in this debate around industry reference group and industry advice.
It is about better face-to-face supervision and relationship building to ensure - as I started this journey and use the clich - no more paint and rock swipe. In remote communities, that is what I am talking about: no more paint and rock swipe. We want real, meaningful project work.
The next layer is our negotiation with providers for opportunities such as the shires and community organisations. They need that accountability; they do not want to have to discipline these people. That is what we are about in building the Community Corrections capacity and linking with the non-government sector. They are very keen to participate.
We are also building our cultural component through elders and respected persons. We want to build a cultural component so elders will be giving advice, counselling and making decisions. Member for Nelson, you know the old school in the Territory. You know the old Aboriginal person and their values. They drive a hard bargain. They are the connections we are making as well, because we want them to be a real determiner of a community reparation work outcome.
The next level we are building is the private sector. I am excited about that because it will be self-regulating. This will be in community work to start with, but when a private sector opportunity comes along which sees a person do some work and contribute to a project, they may be interested in offering them a full-time job - a real job, a paid job. It is about trying to make links there. I am trying to expand opportunities. Community work could be in a remote community, a regional town or a cattle station. We are trying to build every opportunity.
The not-for-profit organisations are the first cab. In Tennant Creek, the work camp is where we started to get a real grip in how the community views this and their aspirations for it.
Having said that, the next level for accountability - and we are building that now – is where Community Corrections clients on community work orders can be attached to a work camp crew or community support program. This means not only in Tennant Creek or Katherine, or as we roll this model out regionally; this also means the mobile components of these camps. Tennant Creek has a mobile component and when it goes to a growth town like Elliott or Ali Curung, the first people on the ground and active will be Community Corrections, to pull in any Community Corrections client in that community and match them up with a structured work output. They are the layers we are building from the ground up.
I will be brutal and tell you where it starts at the moment. In a remote community some Community Corrections people turn up for community work but, because there is no supervision, stretched resources or no structure around to support them, they wander off and we do not achieve an outcome. So, it is about building layers to deliver it. At the end of the day, when we can teach good work-ready skills out of, not only the community work on the weekend for that person, but also the person who is doing 20 hours a week, then private enterprise will offer them a job.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. People need to be convinced this alternative program will do two things: one is repaying the community for an offence and rehabilitation through training and those processes, and the ability for people to learn to work. Some of these people probably have not had a job for a long time. Whilst I understand the concern about painting rocks, if you have reached the stage of painting rocks white, the rest of the community must be spotless. That is not a job I would like. I would put rocks out to stop cars running across where trees were planted or the lawn was planted. With low numeracy and literacy skills, there is plenty of work in communities tidying them up and painting public buildings.
I need some guarantee there will be an independent audit of these programs. You can say as a minister - I understand you want to ensure it sounds and looks good; however, I would be concerned, from a community point of view, that I have seen community orders, which are not the same because there is not the threat - there is the threat of going back to gaol, but in this case there is a bigger threat. The community wants to know these things are working.
Is it possible that occasionally the Auditor-General, or someone else, can assess whether these things are happening? Not by telling them they are coming - that is the worst thing; they will be all working then - by going to a community and saying: ‘There are six people on community custody orders in Yuendumu who are supposed to be doing between eight and 20 hours per week. Where are they? What are they doing at the present time?’ Is there the ability to have an independent check that this program the government is relying on as a new era - that is the logo - is achieving what it said it would?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, member for Nelson, I will be held accountable. As a minister in this House the buck stops with me, as it used to stop with the principal. I will be held accountable, and I am interested in evaluation and assessment, because it delivers good action research.
There are several levels of that too. Community Corrections is case-managing clients; that system will be in place to determine outcomes. We will be able to show real outcomes through case management of clients. If we take it to the next level, the community, we have the opportunity to grow the elders and respected person’s component. Yuendumu is a focus area we are definitely looking at because we want to get pilot studies going. I invite the Council of Territory Cooperation to visit after we get this system in place and we can show developments.
I agree with you, yes, no warning. You do not need to worry about that because you will be able to go into a community and talk to community leaders, community elders, respected persons, shire services managers, managers of organisations within a remote or regional community who will tell you whether it is working or not. We are about making this work.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. We might take you up on that. The Council of Territory Cooperation may take a fly-by-night job or I could visit as chair. I would be looking at more than that. I would be checking out SIHIP houses on the way and maybe talking to local government, because all those things are issues as well.
I have nearly covered everything. There is a statement in the third reading about the use of home detention for bail and parole persons. Is that correct, minister?
Mr McCARTHY: In relation to electronic monitoring and its use in parole?
Mr WOOD: My understanding is the system we use for home detention will be expanded for people who are on bail or parole. That is an option; is that correct?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Will the existing system of home detention be any different for people who are on bail or parole?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, electronic surveillance could be different - the technology added to that. It will be different in the better interface between Community Corrections and the client. That will come with, not only the additional resources, but also the connections we are building within our communities across the Territory. The basic line is to get people active and involved and building self-esteem and the understanding of what it is like to do a good day’s work and to tell someone what you achieved. There are some basic principles in that, but, system-wide, a new era is strengthening the outcomes and it will do that; not only with human resources, but also with technology, and links with the community.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. That is all the questions I have, Madam Chair.
Clauses 23 to 31, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 32:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of current clause 32 of the bill.
Clause 32 negatived.
Proposed new clause 32:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.3 which inserts a new clause 32 into the bill.
This will correct an oversight due to the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Damage) Act 2010 inserting a new section 132 into the Sentencing Act to provide for transitional arrangements for the amendments made to the Criminal Code. The Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill also purports to insert a new section 132 into the Sentencing Act. Amendment 66.3 will correct this by changing section 132 to section 133 of the Sentencing Act.
New clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 43, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.4. Amendment 66.4 of the schedule will amend the heading to Part IX of the Bail Act which is expressed in Roman numerals to Arabic numerals. Schedule 1 of the bill as it is currently worded amends the Bail Act, amongst other things, to amend the part numbering from Roman numerals to Arabic. The heading to Part IX was inadvertently omitted from the bill.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.5. Clause 13 of the bill inserts a new section 4 after current section 3R in the Parole of Prisoners Act. This amendment commences on a day to be fixed by Gazette notice.
Schedule 2 of the bill inserts a new Part 3 heading after section 4 but Schedule 2 is to commence on assent. Accordingly, the insertion of the new Part 3 heading will not work because section 4 will not have commenced on assent.
Amendment 66.5 of the schedule amends Schedule 2 of the bill by removing the reference to section 4 and replacing it with a reference to section 3R. This means the heading, Part 3 of the Parole of Prisoners Act, commences upon assent of this bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.6. Amendment 66.6 of the schedule corrects an oversight in Schedule 2 of the bill whereby subsection 16(c) of the Parole of Prisoners Act should be amended, not section 16(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.7. This clause amends a minor error in the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse and Referral for Treatment Court) Act 2010 whereby the definition of SMART Court in section 3 of the Sentencing Act cited the Alcohol Reform (Substance and Misuse and Referral for Treatment) Act but there is no ‘and’ between ‘substance’ and ‘misuse’ in the actual citation of that act.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 22 February 2011.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report to the Legislative Assembly on matters arising from audits conducted over the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, including statutory audits of financial statements, controls audits and Public Information Act matters.
My ministerial colleagues and I value the work of the Auditor-General in assisting the process of transparency and accountability through independent analysis and drawing our attention to matters of interest.
In December 2010, an allegation was referred to the Auditor-General that the Opposition Leader’s News publication breached the principles of the Public Information Act. The Auditor-General found a contravention of the act did occur; that the newsletter contained photographs that might be construed as party political, and the newsletter contains statements of comment rather than fact which might be construed as party political in their content. The Leader of the Opposition respectfully disagreed with the Auditor-General’s findings. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition campaigned for these rules to be put in place. He commented the publication was supposed to be exempt from the act, argued the intent of the photo montage was not to promote any political party, and stood by the accuracy of each article published in the Opposition Leader’s News.
We have a Leader of the Opposition who has a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ style of politics. I remember the debate on this legislation to tighten up the rules around use of taxpayer money for what could possibly be interpreted as ‘for political purposes’. All in this House agreed. There was bipartisan agreement after much toing and froing from staff in my office, the Leader of the Opposition’s office and the member for Nelson. We all came to a very sensible agreement on the new rules to be put in place around the expenditure of public money to, essentially, promote the workings of government. That also applied to the opposition, yet here we have - I think it is on three separate occasions - the Auditor-General has pinned the Leader of the Opposition for being in breach of the legislation he assisted in constructing, with very high moral indignation at the time in regard to a number of government publications. However, when the Auditor-General found he was in breach, the Leader of the Opposition said: ‘I do not care. I do not accept your findings, Auditor-General. I am going to continue to plunder the public purse and use public money for blatant political advertising on behalf of the Country Liberal Party’.
Once again, the Leader of the Opposition’s integrity is being torn apart, bit by bit, shred by shred, in regard to his public persona and the high moral standing he seeks to portray in the community. I find it offensive to the Auditor-General. All of us in this parliament respect the integrity and independence of the Auditor-General, who reports to the parliament not to government. For the Leader of the Opposition to disagree with his findings and to carry on regardless - his integrity is disappearing piece by piece as the days and the months go on.
With respect to the audits of financial statements which are conducted to provide a level of assurance - those statements are presented fairly - all audits resulted in unqualified audit opinions, compliance with relevant accounting standards, and no matters of significance or material weakness with one exception, NT Build. The Auditor-General was unable to be satisfied that all revenues due had been recognised in NT Build’s financial statements. This was largely due to the nature of the building approval process, and some doubts as to whether NT Build has been advised of all construction work that might fall within the scope of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act. The board of NT Build was well aware of the problem and, whilst confident there is a high level of compliance, continues to pursue solutions to the problem.
The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement tabled on 26 October 2010 was again unqualified for 2009-10, and complies with the requirements of section 9 of the Financial Management Act, the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act and the Uniform Presentation Framework.
A controls audit of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure asset infrastructure system replacement program found unsatisfactory controls and identified opportunities for improvements in resourcing, budget monitoring, contract performance, risk management, changed management, and project management. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure accepted the findings and have since implemented all recommendations.
A controls audit of the Department of Justice Integrated Justice Information System found security controls were established but found deficiencies in the security governance process. DoJ accepted the findings and expects the recommendations to be implemented by 30 November 2011.
It is pleasing to note a controls audit of the Department of Business and Employment restructuring and retendering of outsourced IT contracts was a consultative and well-managed process. This view was supported by a defined governance structure and formal project management structure.
For any issues identified for further improvement, the responsible agencies and entities had either already committed to reviewing the issues identified by the Auditor-General or implemented solutions.
The Auditor-General’s February 2011 report provides over 140 pages of information and analysis on audit activity conducted over the reporting period which provides an assurance to the parliament, and all Territorians, that government agencies are transparent and accountable for managing the resources under their control and have been subjected to the highest level of scrutiny.
On behalf of my colleagues, I thank the Auditor-General for his latest report and take this opportunity to express my full support to the Auditor-General for his continued independent analysis of governance and accountability on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, the government and the Territory community, and in continuing to draw our attention to matters of importance. The role of the Auditor-General and the ongoing program of audits of financial statements, controls and compliance across agencies and entities is one of our most vital components in maintaining open government for all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report and hope the Opposition Leader, in future, complies with the rules put in place through this act in regard to the expenditure of public monies for advertising and promotion, rules he assisted in drafting; rules he insisted be put in place to protect the taxpayer from political parties using public monies for advertising, and the rules that now, on three separate occasions, he has breached basically saying to the Auditor-General: ‘I do not agree with your findings; I will continue to plunder the public purse for political advertising’. I hope the Leader of the Opposition ceases to do so.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition has plundered the public purse, what Genghis Khan did to Eastern Europe is the only example I can describe as plundering when it comes to this government and government advertising. It is ad nauseam when we turn on our television sets at night and, during the broadcast of whatever you want to watch, MasterChef, or Australia’s Funniest Home Videos, we are being bombarded by advertising from this government about what a great job it is doing. So tarnished is the government’s brand, what is its response? Even though it is bombarding us with advertising in relation to all these policies, it wants to change the brand. It is rebranding.
It will spend approximately $100 000 on rebranding the Northern Territory government a year out from an election. We know what Labor Party polling is saying. Guess what, Madam Speaker? The government is going to have little focus groups. ‘How are we going’ focus groups? Get a bunch of people in a room together, put the camera on them and listen to what they have to say. Ask some pointed questions and see what they think of government. Do you think the government is not going to piggyback any information from those focus groups into its election campaign? Hell, yes, it is.
This is the most facile attack I have ever heard from this Chief Minister. You have to plumb depths not yet plumbed by diving bells to get to that level of facile conduct.
The Leader of the Opposition’s news, which came to the attention of the Auditor-General by some Labor member yet unidentified as I understand it, complained bitterly about all of the horrible things the Leader of the Opposition was saying. It is dreadful that we had to talk about crime in our community. It is dreadful we had to talk about the highest cost of living. It is dreadful the Opposition Leader had the audacity to raise the issue of hospital waiting lists and increased power prices. It is all wrong says some anonymous Labor person who writes a letter to the Auditor-General and the Auditor-General gives his opinion.
That is fine, the Auditor-General can give his opinion and whatever flows from that flows from that. However, the minister says anyone who challenges the Auditor-General is criticising this noble man and attacking him personally. I cannot begin to imagine how many Auditor-General’s reports I have read in which government departments disagree with the Auditor-General. If that is the yard stick we are supposed to apply, surely the Chief Minister should be sacking one CEO after another for personally attacking the Auditor-General because they have the audacity to disagree with him.
It is all well and good to cloak yourself in the high and mighty position the Chief Minister seeks to cloak himself in. However, his passion for plundering the public purse is only matched by his ability to land motives at the feet of the Opposition Leader, which, if true, would mean most of his senior public servants would have to be sacked.
That is all the attention I will pay to that issue because other issues were raised in the Auditor-General’s report which require a response.
I turn my attention to the Department of Construction and Infrastructure. The Auditor-General makes observations in relation to a suite of programs being replaced by the AMS program, an asset management program, provided by Fuji or Fujitsu - I cannot remember which - that was running somewhat over time and over budget. The switch-on date for this program was originally April 2010. The most recent advice I have received is the switch-on date is now September 2011, 18 months late and $6.4m over budget.
The Public Accounts Committee met today to discuss this matter with the public servants. I place on the record my thanks to those public servants who explained some of the issues which arose. There were clearly issues between the Northern Territory government and the supplying company which played out in various ways and led to the outcomes identified by the Auditor-General. Clearly, the Auditor-General was concerned, had good cause to be concerned, and I remain concerned that a program of this nature and magnitude is running 18 months late and still has not been switched on despite its intended start date of April 2010. Nevertheless, the new CEO of the department who took over the operation has to be commended. When he realised there was slippage occurring in the production and roll-out of this program he took the matter to task and sorted it matter out. It is sad he had to respond in the way he did. Nevertheless, he did, and probably contained a bad situation from becoming worse. Hopefully, we will end up with a system, once it is switched on in September, which will provide a good and serviceable system for the people and the asset maintenance of the Northern Territory.
I turn my attention to the Auditor-General’s comments in relation to the Darwin Port Corporation. The Auditor-General reviewed the ro-ro wharf now being tendered for sale, and I understand a contractor is in the pipeline. The ro-ro wharf was developed in the late 1970s or early 1980s. It is a floating wharf which can take on or purge water, enabling it to rise up or sink down to an appropriate level. The Northern Territory government, through Darwin Port Corporation, was given an amount of money every year which was expected by the Department of Defence to be spent on the maintenance of the ro-ro wharf so they could use it. Events surrounding East Timor were an example of where the ro-ro wharf was used.
Then, all of a sudden, the Auditor-General discovered a situation where $2.117m had to be paid back to the Department of Defence because the maintenance work had not been done. It turns out the idea was the money was to be accumulated until a certain amount of money was available and the wharf was to be repaired in the order of $2.8m or thereabouts. When a quote was sought, rather than being a $2.5m repair it was an $8m repair. It was not economical to repair it. The intent was to send that money back to the Department of Defence. However, we have since been advised contracts have been negotiated where another form of slipway or landing area will be available for the Department of Defence and the little over $2m in question will now, rather than being paid back to the Department of Defence, be rolled into the construction of the new area. That has the effect of making the ro-ro wharf redundant for government purposes and it is to be sold off to a private firm. I understand there is an interested party.
The issue of greening the NT Fleet was raised by the Auditor-General in his report. There will be a change of approach by NT Fleet as a result of this review in relation to how it monitors its carbon emissions. At the outset, the approach of monitoring the carbon emissions by NT Fleet involved taking the manufacturers stated carbon emissions and relying on those. The system had a critical eye cast over it and the Auditor-General has pointed out the system needed to be changed. Therefore, NT Fleet is now looking at fuel consumption as a system by which to monitor the fleet because manufacturers’ recommendations are under ideal driving conditions with ideal drivers. The truth in the Northern Territory is we do not always have both, if either, and, as a consequence, fuel consumption is a better way of measuring the proposed capacity of NT Fleet to drop its emissions by 20% over the period of five years. This presents one problem for NT Fleet because it will now have two systems of counting if it has been able to drop emissions by 20%. I hope that in future years, when the final result is reported on, we use a system by which we can compare apples with apples rather than apples with oranges.
Madam Speaker, I place on the record my thanks to Frank McGuiness, the Auditor-General of the Northern Territory, for his usual diligence. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I acknowledge his work and appreciate the fact he sees us, as a committee, his number one client. I am grateful for the ongoing work he does.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his February 2011 report to the Assembly. A number of areas under my portfolio responsibilities were identified in this report. The first is the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation. The Auditor-General makes comment on the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation in an audit for the year ended 30 June 2010 which resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion issued on 28 September. The audit did not identify any material weaknesses.
The report made comment on the corporation’s profit before income tax, which was $22.6m for the year ended 30 June 2010, an increase from the previous year of $19.1m. This mainly reflects an increase in interest income as a result of an increase in the total value of loans made, and related increase in interest expense.
The Auditor-General also reported on the Power and Water Corporation. The audit of Power and Water Corporation for the year ended 30 June 2010 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion issued on 17 September. The audit did not identify any material weakness in controls. The report noted the activities of the corporation for the year, and its subsidiaries, resulted in a loss of $248.8m compared with a profit of $121.1m for the prior year. This represents a decline in revenues as well as increasing expenses mainly due to the decline in the value of electricity generation and network assets. The decline in the value of electricity generation and network assets is due to the increase in depreciation expenditure as a result of increased investment in the generation network systems.
Government has made provisions for a series of debt to equity swaps for Power and Water Corporation in 2010-11, and over the forward estimates to be reassessed annually. These swaps will assist with funding to bring forward an increased infrastructure investment as part of Power and Water Corporation’s new generation strategy to improve system capability and reliability while maintaining Power and Water Corporation’s fiscal sustainability. Given the significant expenditure and infrastructure the government has determined Power and Water Corporation should seek to achieve a financial rather than a commercial return on assets.
The audit of the Territory Insurance Office for the year ended 30 June 2010 resulted in an unqualified, independent audit opinion issued on 30 September 2010. Territory Insurance Office is required, by Treasurer’s Determination, to comply with prudential standards issued by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority and modified to address specific factors affecting the Territory Insurance Office. The determination ensures Territory Insurance Office is subject to the same level of prudential regulation which applies to other insurers and authorised deposit-taking institutions. For the purposes of the determination, the Auditor-General has been deemed to be the appointed auditor and has conducted reviews of the insurance and banking functions of the Territory Insurance Office during 2009-10. Following that review, the Auditor-General advised Territory Insurance Office had met the requirements of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority’s prudential standards.
The Auditor-General’s audit opinion on the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2009-10 was unqualified. The TAFR was tabled in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Management Act and the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
Madam Speaker, I thank the board of the Power and Water Corporation and the Territory Insurance Office for the fine work they do in ensuring those authorities are operating at their most efficient and effective way in delivering services to Territorians. I thank the Auditor-General for his unqualified audit opinions.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, yes, the Chief Minister is correct: I have disagreed with the findings of the Auditor-General - and respectfully so - regarding some of the material included in the Opposition Leader’s News being in breach of the Public Information Act. The offending item is the newsletter Opposition Leader’s News.
Importantly, during the negotiations - which I recall well - on this bill it was agreed the Opposition Leader’s News would be treated in the same category as electorate newsletters and, hence, exemption from the operation of the act. However, the Labor Party reneged on that agreement. That aside, noted and not forgotten, I will turn to each of the issues raised by the Auditor-General.
First, I will comment on the fact that a Labor MLA, who remains anonymous, was responsible for the complaint. The Labor MLA who referred the Opposition Leader’s News to the Auditor-General should at least have the courage to identify themself. The hidden Labor MLA disputed a number of statements which characterise the failure of the Henderson government. The electorate has the right to know which Labor politician disputes the accuracy of the statement that Territorians are paying nearly 25% more for electricity than they were two years ago. Which of them can stand up and say they dispute that? Stand up in front of your electorate; stand up in front of your community. You cannot stand up here; however, you can make an anonymous report you dispute it and make a report to the Auditor-General. The price of electricity has increased by 23.9% since 2008 - nearly 25%.
Mr Knight: The second-lowest in the country.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: I think he is trying to defend himself. He is defending himself.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr MILLS: The electorate has the right to know which Labor politician disputes the statement Labor made during the election campaign that power bills would be cut if Labor was returned to government. Who will own up to that being an offensive item they reported to the Auditor-General?
Dr Burns: Like you want to find out which MLAs sent the e-mail?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: Yes, it is like lifting up a rock and out they all scurry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Mr MILLS: The ALP’s 2008 policy platform says:
That is a promise to reduce the price of electricity. The electorate has the right to know which Labor politician disputes the statement. Given we also have the highest rents in the country, which is RP Data’s October survey - one of the countless housing surveys to find Darwin had the highest capital city rents in the nation - the public has the right to know which Labor politician disputes the accuracy of tables showing steep increases in violent crime in Darwin and Palmerston between 2004 and 2009. The tables were based on Department of Justice figures which should be well-known to all Territory politicians. The anonymous Labor politician seems to know very little about the price of electricity, the cost of rent, and the level of violent crime plaguing Darwin and Palmerston. No wonder that person wants to remain anonymous.
Turning to the specific matters included in the Auditor-General’s report, there was a picture of me with the federal members for Warringah and Solomon. The picture had no caption identifying any person or position; the banner in the background is merely incidental and, in any event, is not applicable to the member for Warringah. The intent and effect of the montage was to show the many facets of an Opposition Leader’s job - not to promote a political party …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: ‘Some Territory households are believed to be paying up to $1000 more for their electricity than in 2008’, a statement objected to by this anonymous Labor politician. The fact it states ‘some households are believed to be paying up to a $1000 more’ indicates it is a comment. Further, there is nothing inaccurate about the statement: ‘My office has been contacted by people complaining about an annual increase in their electricity bills of up to $1000’. That is a fact!
Another comment this anonymous person was concerned about, so concerned they rushed off to the Auditor-General in breach of the agreement already established when this bill was put in place:
That is a section from the newsletter …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: The government rushes off to the Auditor-General to have a shot at this one, to close it down, stifling debate. The government does not want any of this out there. This is the response: Power and Water’s annual report shows the Territory government took $78m in dividends between 2002 and 2006, and that money was taken whilst electricity demand increased and maintenance budgets were frozen …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Casuarina substation collapsed in 2008, remember that? More than seven years after the election of the Martin government …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The minister for Business will cease interjecting, as will the member for Greatorex.
Mr MILLS: The Casuarina substation collapsed in 2008 more than seven years after the election of the Martin government and after a reduction in the real maintenance budget for five consecutive years. On 3 August 2006, the then minister responsible for Power Water, Syd Stirling, issued a media release stating:
Had the system been in long-term decline, the minister would have taken the opportunity to say so. He did not. The facts speak for themselves in this matter. Further, I do not agree with the observation that because the Henderson government took no dividends in 2008, 2009 or 2010 is relevant to an analysis of why the electricity system collapsed in 2008. The information provides no insight about the cause of that collapse, nor is the increase in capital expenditure after the collapse in 2008 relevant to the cause of the system failure.
Another quote the anonymous person found offensive:
That was found to be a problem too.
On 11 August 2010, I moved the following motion:
The government supported the plan to destroy those houses. Given an opportunity to support a motion keeping the houses in situ, the government rejected it and supported a motion which allowed for the houses to be relocated, which was federal Labor’s promise during the election campaign. I maintain moving an entire suburb with nowhere to relocate houses is wasteful and destructive. I note the Auditor-General’s concern that saving houses was first raised by the current member for Solomon might be construed as promoting a political party. It is promoting an incredibly sensible policy in the middle of a housing crisis not a party.
The opposition is supportive of the federal government’s My School website and may run an article about it in the next Opposition Leader’s News. Would that be considered as promoting the Labor Party? Would the government object? I doubt it.
Madam Speaker, it can be said that the Henderson government is desperate to stifle informed debate about its many policy failures. I have no intention of allowing that to happen. I finish the way I started: this whole episode commenced with an agreement that the Opposition Leader’s News would be treated the same way as an electronic newsletter. That agreement was reneged on by Labor.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, this is the second time during these sittings the opposition, and now the Opposition Leader - if an independent body makes a finding they do not agree with, they monster them. Not as directly as the member for Araluen did with Professor Graham Vimpani and his committee. It is obvious from what the Opposition Leader said - he said in writing he respectfully disagrees with the findings of the Auditor-General and has tried, as much as he can, to maintain that. However, he is clearly unrepentant. There has been a finding against him by the Auditor-General that he breached the regulations. He has tried to find every excuse, justification and self-justification of what he has done.
He does not have the power, moreover, to discipline his member for Araluen who has stepped over the line in her insulting remarks about an independent committee which came to a conclusion quite contrary to the one she wants to run. This is the opposition. We saw recently the member for Port Darwin approach the member for Nelson when he disagreed with him and physically stood over him. The opposition consists of a bunch of thugs who, when anyone disagrees with them, they want to monster. Heaven help the Northern Territory if they took power.
The member for Katherine - one only has to read the report by the Ombudsmen to see the allegations by Mr Rowley about the car sale and the threats Mr Rowley felt had been made against him. To see the calibre of the people opposite - they are not fit to hold government; they are bunch of thugs. We knew what the CLP was like during the 27 years it was in power. It wanted to monster people who stood up against it; now we see a return of it. I caution Territorians in relation to the election in 2012.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I want to speak briefly on the Auditor-General’s report. The member for Port Darwin mentioned some of the issues raised in the committee meeting today and I will not repeat those. My comments relate to greening the NT Fleet, which sounds like it should be sung to Greensleeves. It is interesting government policy in that under the climate change policy 2009, the government is to reduce emissions from the Territory government’s passenger and light commercial fleet by 20% by 2014, and 50% by 2020. That is commendable. Without getting into debate over climate change and carbon, we do not want to be polluting our air. We breathe it; the cleaner it is the better. What concerns me is although this policy is good for NT Fleet, as a tiny body in the bigger world we have to look outside the square. When the government introduced the idea to reduce emissions you had to have a Prius. If you did not have a Prius, you were not doing anything for the climate. People bought a Prius.
The previous Chief Minister spoke about gas as an alternative and how that would help reduce emissions, so people were getting their cars changed to gas. The reality is this issue of emissions, by itself, is too simplistic. Someone needs to ask: ‘What is the carbon required to make a Prius, compared to say …’, and I am not trying to advertise here but I need to mention a few names, ‘… the Ford eco tech, which is a small diesel, or the Mini Cooper diesel?’ Those cars have better emissions and performance than the Prius, but everyone bought a Prius. We might get these reductions, but what carbon emissions were required to produce a Prius rather than a Ford? How much carbon was used to manufacture the batteries? How far did the car travel to Australia, because there is a carbon emission in transport? What form of electricity and energy was used to produce the car in another country or in Australia? We should be reducing our emissions.
Sometimes this debate does not go far enough. I will give you an example. I visited a local school running an Environment Day. They told the kids to turn all the switches off: ‘That will save the environment; it will reduce carbon’. We know, on its own, it does not. When you turn a switch off it does not make any difference to the powerhouse at Channel Island. You have to reduce the power by 15% before there is a requirement to turn off one generator. You then reduce carbon emissions.
It is not bad to tell people to turn their power off. From my point of view, it reduces my power bill. That is the way the Clyde Fenton School has been promoting energy saving. The school has power police who go around at the end of the day ensuring all the computers and lights are turned off. The school saved itself $60 000. If it happens in the meantime they have reduced the carbon emissions, good luck to them.
We have to keep our feet on the ground and not tell people something that is not really true. Turning a switch off will not save the planet on its own; everyone needs to do it.
It is the same with NT Fleet. The government has targets to reduce emissions. If the offset was the manufacture of a particular vehicle had low emissions but extremely high energy requirements in its production which produced far more carbon, then have you done anything for the planet? We have to talk planet-wise. While NT Fleet is trying to reduce emissions, it is a very narrow view. The government’s strategy in relation to carbon emissions needs to be a little more fulsome, a little more global, otherwise you could be convincing constituents you are saving the world by reducing emissions when you may not be and could be making it worse.
Although it is difficult to show these things, the debate on energy requirements and carbon needs to be much more focused on the bigger picture rather than favourites that will look good. If you were to ask me whether it is making any difference to the carbon emissions worldwide, that question needs to be answered before we change emissions in a few vehicles in the Northern Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s report for February 2011. The report to the Legislative Assembly includes the following matters in relation to the Department of Business and Employment: the IT outsourcing project; Data Centre Services financial statements audit for the year ending 30 June 2010; the Government Printing Office financial statement for the same period; and the NT Fleet financial statements audit for 30 June 2010.
With respect to the IT outsourcing project, auditors were of the view that a formal and consolidated approach was defined and followed by the IT outsourcing initiative, which is supported by the existence of a defined governance and formal project management structure. The audit confirmed a new outsourcing service model was achieved, although there were some minor disruptions to services during the transition period, which is understandable.
The audit identified a post-implementation review of the revised sourcing strategy and the service model had not been completed at the time of the audit. It was acknowledged management planned to undertake a post-implementation review after the contracts had been in a steady state for a reasonable period after the transition. A post-implementation review was undertaken with a report provided to the chief executive in April this year. The review identified opportunities to enhance the government’s future projects of a similar nature. There was quite a massive change with the IT project and we have some significant financial gains for the Northern Territory through that project, and also real clarity on future growth in the various areas of IT.
With respect to the government business division financial statements, the report confirmed unqualified audit opinions, that is, no significant problems identified. We provide the GBD divisions of Data Centre Services, the Government Printing Office and NT Fleet. The summarised financial statements analyse and are complementary of the Auditor-General’s report, and are a fair representation of the 2009-10 financial report and the position of the GBDs. Detailed financial information for the GBDs is available in DBE’s 2009-10 annual report, which is published on the DBE website. It is all clear for DBE and the GBDs underneath DBE.
Madam Speaker, we thank the Auditor-General for his professional approach to this report and look forward to further scrutiny of the operations of our department and other departments.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General’s February 2011 report to the Legislative Assembly includes two matters relating to my portfolio responsibilities.
First, the Auditor-General’s comments in relation to the Jabiru Town Development Authority. The Jabiru Town Development Authority is chaired by Senior Executive Director of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, Fran Kilgariff, and has overall responsibility, under the Jabiru Town Development Act, for the maintenance and development of the town of Jabiru, the issue of subleases of land in the township, and the administration, management and control of the town. As members would know, the town is located on land vested in the control of the Commonwealth Director of National Parks and a part of Kakadu National Park. The authority continues to hold the lease for the land used for Jabiru town purposes, and to administer the 1985 cost sharing agreement relating to the establishment of the town.
The Auditor-General has undertaken an audit of the authority’s 2009-10 financial statements, which resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion. The Auditor-General found the financial statements comply with Australian accounting standards. While the audit of the JTDA was unqualified, the Auditor-General noted, as he has in the past, that the authority’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on the continuation of a moratorium on the authority’s future interest and repayment of loans due to the Northern Territory government totalling $8.8m.
The background is, in the course of establishing Jabiru, the then Northern Territory government, through the Northern Territory Treasury, provided loan funds to JTDA to fund over-design services, mainly water supply and sewerage services constructed to meet the expected population needs of the town. The expectation at the time was the Northern Territory would recoup this investment as further development occurred in the Kakadu region. In 1986, the government granted JTDA a moratorium on the repayment of the loan and interest payments in acknowledgement that the anticipated growth of the town had not occurred. Each year, the authority’s auditors request the Northern Territory Treasury for confirmation of the status of the moratorium. In respect of this audit, the Northern Territory Treasury has confirmed the moratorium on the interest payment and loan repayments is ongoing.
The authority remains capable, as it has in the past, of operating and performing its functions in relation to the administration and development of Jabiru while the government maintains its moratorium on the repayment of the loan. The situation will continue until it is resolved in the context of the review of the 1985 cost-sharing agreement involving Energy Resources of Australia, the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory government, and decision-making about the future of the Jabiru lease arrangements.
The other area of comment in relation to my portfolio responsibilities is in relation to Territory Discoveries, a government business division operating as a commercial wholesaling arm of Tourism NT. In particular, Territory Discoveries is responsible for generating business for the Territory’s tourism industry, particularly small- to medium-sized Territory tourism businesses through packaging and marketing NT tourism products and services to travel agents and consumers in Australia and New Zealand, as well as other major international markets.
For the year ending June 30 2010, Territory Discoveries reported a nett profit of $107 000 in a competitive environment and Territory Discoveries’ financial statements were tabled in the Legislative Assembly as part of Tourism NT’s annual report in November 2010. The Auditor-General has reported Territory Discoveries financial report was in accordance with Australian accounting standards and has provided an unqualified audit opinion. The audit did not identify any material weaknesses in controls.
Madam Speaker, it is important that government sets a good example in the administration of public monies and has an open and transparent system of governance with public reporting and debate on the audits of public accounts. I thank the Auditor-General and his staff for their work, and thank him for the audit work in relation to my portfolio responsibilities.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I welcome the latest report from the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General, and his office, play an important role in ensuring Territorians have confidence in the financial and reporting processes of government agencies. The report covers audits conducted during the period 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010. I am pleased to advise that across my portfolios the Auditor-General did not, in the majority, identify any material weaknesses in controls. Where recommendations have been made to improve systems, these recommendations have been acted upon.
Turning first to the Construction Division of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, Budget 2011-2012 delivers a $1.5bn infrastructure project supporting 3000 jobs and representing a 300% increase in funding since 2001. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure, and the Construction Division, has a driving role in delivering the government’s infrastructure program for the benefit of Territorians. The Construction Division is a government business division responsible for the project management of government’s capital works and repairs and maintenance programs. Its income for the year was $89.76m, up from $66.1m in 2009. That increase is due, in the main, to an increase in the project management fees earned as a result of the increase in the value of the projects managed - up $415m or 52%. In 2009-10, the division managed 3211 projects worth $1.2bn, up from 2875 projects worth $794m in 2008-09. That is a significant achievement and I commend all at the Construction Division for their efforts.
In his February report, the Auditor-General reviewed the Department of Construction and Infrastructure’s processes around the replacement of the asset information system with the asset management system. In particular, the Auditor-General considered the project management, governance and control and contract management controls. The asset management system is being introduced to replace the outdated asset information systems to improve, amongst others, contract performance managing, budget monitoring and reporting and risk management. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure will manage and maintain the new system on behalf of all agencies once operational. Once operational, AMS will provide a whole-of-government asset management system greatly improving asset management, planning and reporting capabilities.
In his assessment of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure’s processes to install the asset management system, the Auditor-General noted issues around project costs, resourcing and contract management. I am pleased to advise the Department of Construction and Infrastructure has responded in full to the Auditor-General’s recommendations. As noted in the Department of Construction and Infrastructure’s response to the report, additional resources have been recruited on a full-time and part-time basis to make certain the project will be completed by the go live date.
Further project costs are monitored each month by the asset management team and project board, with a requirement for additional costs to be approved by the steering committee. Monitoring methods for the consultants’ performance have been improved, and to quote from the DCI response:
Quoting further from the DCI response:
While there is still room for improvement with constant monitoring and consolidated reviews, the project will proceed under strong governance, sound project management and robust contract management framework. I look forward to the full implementation of the asset management system and the benefits for government agencies.
The Darwin Bus Service is a government business division which, with private sector operators, delivers bus services to the Territory. This government is working hard to improve public transport services across the Territory. In the last year we have introduced new express bus routes between Darwin, Palmerston and Casuarina. We have expanded bus routes in Alice Springs; we have established a new Cullen Bay bus service; and we continue to provide free public transport for pensioners, seniors and students. In addition to regular services, the government also provides free buses to major events including the AFL, BassintheGrass and the V8s. The Auditor-General did not identify any material weaknesses in controls in his audit of DBS for the year to 30 June 2010. The increase in operating expenses is noted. This is mainly due to the introduction of a bus service between Cullen Bay, Bayview and the city, delivering on another election commitment.
The Darwin Port Corporation is a government business division operating the Darwin Port Corporation Act. The corporation provides commercial and non-commercial services including berth facilities, cargo handling, marine industry support, development and management of the Darwin wharf precinct for tourism and recreation and provision of port and reception facilities for crews and naval vessel visits. The audit of Darwin Port Corporation for the year ending 30 June 2010 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion. The audit did not identify any material weaknesses in controls. The corporation realised a nett profit for the year of $0.33m. That is a sound improvement from the previous year where it experienced a loss of $1.51m.
The improvement in the operating result is predominantly due to an overall increase in port tariffs together with an increase in the volume of cargo handled for the year. The corporation’s nett asset position increased by $11.608m to $176.345m. This was due largely to the re-evaluation of the corporation’s assets during the year. The report notes the impact of an accounting change concerning the roll-on/roll-off facility. The change, which is in accordance with a recommendation from the Auditor-General, was deemed necessary because the port corporation did not recognise the Department of Defence original capital contribution of $2.117m as revenue when the amount was received in 2003. The accounting adjustment was subsequently made in the 2010 financial year.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General and his staff for their efforts. These reports are an important component of delivering open and accountable government services.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Araluen:
It is signed by the member for Araluen.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
I remind members it is 20 minutes, 20 minutes and then all other speakers 15 minutes with no extensions.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I first presented you with this proposal for a matter of public importance yesterday morning, Monday, 8 August. It is now Tuesday evening, 9 August, and much has changed in the last two days. Much has changed for the government, and much has been revealed to the public of the Northern Territory of how desperate this government is in its provision of child protection services in the Northern Territory.
This government needs to answer many questions regarding the oversight of children in the care and protection of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families. Before I get to specific examples of what I originally planned to talk about, I bring to your attention the two reports presented to parliament in the last 48 hours pertaining to child protection in the Northern Territory.
The first is the Northern Territory government’s Growing them strong, together Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee report following the second meeting of this committee between 26 and 27 May 2011. This report was tabled in parliament on 8 August. It does not contain any information as to the author. There is nothing in this to suggest who wrote it.
My comments last night in adjournment debate were around the fact this paper does not have a face to it. This paper suggests the committee is formed and driven by the government - that this paper was perhaps written by the government, suggesting a watchdog is in place to oversee the implementation of the 147 recommendations of the board of inquiry report into child protection in 2010. This committee was set up to monitor the implementation of those recommendations. There is nothing in this report to suggest that is what this committee is doing at this stage. It is a very disappointing report, not giving anyone any confidence this government is committed to an independent external impartial committee to monitor what it is doing.
It is very important to the community of Alice Springs, and the different parts of the Northern Territory, that this committee provides some transparency to what the government is and is not doing with child protection. After the succession of reports and inquiries into the failure of this government, we need this committee to provide specific information on how the government is progressing in its reforms of the child protection system. This report did not provide any information to suggest this committee is doing that job.
My comments regarding this report were to a faceless group of people - perhaps to the government - whoever wrote this report, suggesting I am disappointed and the people of the Northern Territory are, no doubt, disappointed in what they read in this report.
The second report presented to parliament in the last 48 hours was the report of a partial investigation of the child protection authority written by the Northern Territory Ombudsman titled A Life Long Shadow. This is a partial report because the Ombudsman’s role was changed by the government. She was effectively marginalised, sidelined, and told to stop talking about child protection, stop working on child protection, stop highlighting the deficits, the incompetency, stop telling them they are doing a bad job and get on with the other business you are assigned to do. She will be no longer required to investigate matters pertaining to child protection. This is a partial report because the government could not stand to hear the very well-considered and genuine concerns of the Northern Territory Ombudsman.
She presented the first report to the government on 29 June 2011. She presented the final report to the Minister for Child Protection, who apparently sat on this report for a month before handing it back to the Ombudsman saying: ‘No, you have to present this final report to the Chief Minister’. One question I would like answered by the minister is: ‘Why did you sit on this report for a month? Why did you not immediately hand the report back to the Ombudsman and expedite the process?’ I can only imagine that month was used to buy some time, to perhaps seek legal advice on how you could further gag the Ombudsman in her endeavour to expose the failures of this government when it comes to child protection.
The report the Ombudsman provided the community of the Northern Territory is another example of how this government has relentlessly tried to cover-up the failures it has been responsible for when it comes to child protection. It will do anything to cover-up. It will do anything to hide its maladministration, its mistakes, and this report once again exposes the culture of cover-up that is this government when it comes to child protection.
This report came about as a result of three things. The first was the Ombudsman was being approached by staff of the child protection authority who were concerned about the inadequate response to notifications within the system. They had various complaints about the internal operations of the child protection authority.
The second reason was these people felt they could face reprisals and recriminations as a result of being too vocal, which they learnt through the experience of Susan Mansfield who has publicly been identified as a problem for the government, and has been the subject of considerable recriminations and reprisals because of her decision to go public and expose the deficits within the child protection system.
Also, the death of Deborah Melville acted as a stimulus to this report being written. Through these three things, the Ombudsman decided to commence her own motion investigation. She wanted to protect the source of her information, so she decided to undertake an own motion investigation into child protection. This, of course, was not met favourably by the government.
The things she has exposed within this report are fairly consistent with many other reports delivered in the Northern Territory over the last 10 years. She was very damning, very critical; however, she used an evidence-based approach. She used facts gained from 17 cases which she felt demonstrated the points needed to be delivered rather strongly in her report. She was very critical of the Central Intake System, which she felt was totally under-resourced. She was critical of the fact the Northern Territory public health system only required notification orally; they would not accept written notifications, with the exception of the police. She was very critical of the backlog. She felt information provided to the minister was somewhat questionable and probably manufactured rather than absolute, soundproof data. She was also critical of the fact there were no mandatory investigations. A child can come to the notification of the department 10, 20 or 30 times but they are under no duress to investigate.
She delivered 28 recommendations in the report and the government rejected 40% of them. Forty percent of her recommendations were not agreed to, or opposed, by the government. Well, that is a surprise. The government has effectively dismissed 40% of what she feels needs to be done to improve the child protection system of the Northern Territory.
One which I found intriguing was No 7, which has relevance to the Susan Mansfield case.
Recommendation 7 of the report was:
The government has opposed that; it does not think professional notifiers should e-mail or fax notifications. That is the point where it has zeroed in on Susan Mansfield and her decision as an independent professional person in her own right. She decided to provide written notifications not just oral notifications, and for that she is the subject of an inquiry into her conduct.
The last two days have presented a range of interesting information which, sadly, reinforces the state of affairs this government is in when it comes to child protection.
Today the minister spoke about the makeup of the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee and gave some incorrect information, no doubt unintentionally. He mentioned two members of the committee who, we are fairly confident if not certain, are no longer on the committee. Donna Ah Chee and Charlie King are no longer on the committee. Minister, you are not up to date; you do not know who you have appointed to the committee. There is a vacancy for the Ombudsman to be appointed to that committee tonight - if you would make the decision - and be an effective member of a committee that should be watching what you are doing, should be making you accountable, should be making the whole process transparent and above board so the people of the Northern Territory can develop some confidence in the care and protection of children and how you go about your business. There will never be accountability in the system until such a day comes.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs LAMBLEY: You mentioned today, for the second time, I failed to turn up to a meeting of the Child Protection Monitoring and Reporting Committee in Alice Springs. I was not invited, minister; I have never been invited to meet with them. I turned up at the Council of Territory Cooperation meeting on 25 May because I heard, by accident, Dr Vimpani was attending. I flew here but he was too busy to see me, which was fair enough. I did not have an opportunity, even at that stage, to spend 10 minutes with him face-to-face. You can accuse me all you like; you can try to deflect and create a smoke screen. The member for Johnston can have a temper tantrum because it is all coming undone …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY: You are coming undone, minister. You cannot hide any longer …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could you remind the member for Araluen she needs to be directing her comments through the Chair not across the Chamber, thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, through the Chair.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Things are coming unstuck and this government has lost control when it comes to child protection.
The story I wanted to tell tonight was about two children in the care and protection of the CEO of the Department of Children and Families who have come to grief in Alice Springs over the last four weeks. Sadly, these two cases illustrate a system that is letting children down, that is dysfunctional and causing grief not only to the children involved, but the community of Alice Springs. Like the Ombudsman, who has graphically detailed 17 cases, these two cases the minister would no doubt be aware of very clearly demonstrate things need to improve dramatically.
I am not going to provide too many details of the cases because one of them is part of a coroner’s investigation, and the other one is part of a legal investigation; however, I have many questions the minister needs to answer around these cases.
On 8 August 2011, a little boy in the care and protection of the CEO of the Department of Children and Families, or the minister - they are both synonymous in my mind and in the minds of most Territorians - was run over by a vehicle outside an Alice Springs town camp. This little boy had an intellectual disability, was well-known in the community of Alice Springs, and attended a local school. Many people have expressed their absolute grief and horror about the loss of this little boy’s life. A coroner’s investigation is currently being undertaken. I believe the boy is to be buried later this week. This child has died in the care of the minister. This is another Deborah Melville; another loss of life under the supervision of this minister and of this government ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member is going to make statements in this parliament she should use the right terminology. She knows very well that, under the act, a child is not under the care of the minister. They are under the care of the Chief Executive Officer of the department. This legislation was passed in this parliament, Madam Speaker.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw my comments. The CEO of the department is under the management of the minister. There is very little difference in the point I am trying to make. For your benefit, minister, I will use the correct terminology.
This little boy was known as a very active child; he was known as a runner. I am told he would run everywhere. He was highly active; he was rather impulsive but everyone knew him to be extremely active, running around the place frantically everywhere. He was placed temporarily, or in a long-term situation, I do not know, with family at the Old Timers Camp which has no gate and free access to the road. I am not going to labour this but questions have to be asked around the suitability, generally speaking, of the placement of this child with a family at Old Timers Camp irrespective of who the carers are - the physical amenities and safety required for that child given his type of behaviour. What was the case management plan for this child? What was the plan for supervising this child while staying at Old Timers? Why was the boy not living with his parents? Perhaps it was because the parents could not provide adequate safety measures and the special needs this boy required. Was this child ready to be placed back with family if he was living with family at the Old Timers Camp?
Many questions have to be asked, and no doubt the coroner, as he did with Deborah Melville, will be delving deeply into why this little boy died. The CEO of the department and the minister need answers to these questions in order to provide some confidence in the community when it comes to this little boy.
Finally, a 12-year-old boy allegedly sexually assaulted a six-year-old girl in a public park in Alice Springs. This tragic event has stunned the community.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, this government has many questions to answer regarding how it protects children in care. The Growing them strong, together report had 47 recommendations pertaining to out of home care …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the interest the member for Araluen has in the two cases in Alice Springs. I will respond to them first.
The first is about the death of a five-year-old boy in Alice Springs which is not regrettable, it is tragic. It is tragic when such a young child dies from injuries sustained from a road accident. The incident took place on 8 July 2011. The child was in a temporary placement arrangement and was struck by a vehicle in Alice Springs. It is believed he ran onto the road. That temporary placement arrangement, member for Araluen, is a placement agreed to by the parents or guardians of a child and occurs under section 46 of the Care and Protection of Children Act.
That child was out of home, under the care of the CEO, because he had complex medical needs the family could not meet. At the same time, the Department of Families and Children was working to reunite the child with the family. At the time of the death the child was with its parents. The department is investigating the incident in order to find out what happened, how it happened and, of course, how it can be avoided in the future.
The second incident, the sexual assault of the six-year-old, is a tragic incident and the department is working with the children and families involved. The Sexual Assault Referral Clinic on-call counsellor visited to provide crisis support to the mother and the child, and coordinate with medical officers in Darwin and the police. The police are still investigating the issue; it has not been finalised. I understand the child was in the care of the Chief Executive Officer, placed in kinship care with family. The incident took place in school hours.
These are two regrettable and tragic incidents which should not have happened; unfortunately they did. The department is working with the families to find out how similar incidents can be prevented in the future.
The member for Araluen spoke about the report by the independent Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee I presented yesterday. She said she did not know who had written it, who is on the committee, or who did what.
Let me remind you, member for Araluen, when the board of inquiry presented its report to the government, it made 147 recommendations for the reform of the Territory’s child protection and child and family services system. Following this presentation, the government made a commitment to allocate an extra $130m over five years on top of the $140m annual budget of the department. In addition to that, it decided to appoint an external, totally independent committee to oversee the implementation of the recommendations.
The committee is chaired by Professor Graham Vimpani, a Professor of Community Child Health and Head of the Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Newcastle. That was made public at the time. A media release highlighted everyone on the committee. Other people on the committee are Dr Sven Silburn, Director of Health and Education at the Menzies School of Health; Terry Murphy, Director General, Department of Child Protection in Western Australia; Frank Hytten, Executive Officer, Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care; Jacqui Reed, CEO of Create Foundation, Teresa Neihus, President of Foster Care NT, and, at the time, Donna Ah Chee and Charlie King. Donna accepted a job in Canberra and had to leave and Charlie was very busy and asked to be relieved of the responsibility, which we accepted. People have been approached regarding the two vacant positions and both will be filled soon.
This committee has as chairman, Dr Vimpani. If you bothered to read the report the very first paragraph says:
The very last of that paragraph sentence says:
Who wrote the report? This is the committee’s first report so there must be an author. That report is written by the committee. That is in the very first paragraph of the report you have in your hands. Next time, before you make a statement, read what you have in your hands.
The member said she was not invited to meet the committee. Hundreds of people in Alice Springs met the committee because they attended the meeting. No one was specifically invited to meet the committee.
I have received a letter from you asking to meet with the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee at the earliest opportunity. I cannot do that. It is an independent committee. If you would like to meet with the committee I suggest you grovel to Dr Vimpani, after the attack you launched yesterday, and request a meeting. I am sure Dr Vimpani and his committee will find the opportunity to meet with you. I cannot organise a meeting. It is an independent committee which does not take direction from the minister. If you want, I can give you the phone number for Dr Vimpani and you can ask for a meeting and possibly explain the comments you made yesterday about the integrity of the committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Araluen has form. Today she asked a question in parliament about a child she alleges was exposed to domestic violence. When everything was explained and I read the statement from the mother, she issued a media release accusing the government of exposing a child to domestic violence despite the fact the mother issued a statement saying she was under control …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: That shows …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members! I ask honourable members to observe Standing Order 51:
I will be putting people on a warning if that continues.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Araluen has the audacity to issue a media release after Question Time reiterating the untruth she said in parliament - that somehow that child was exposed to domestic violence when the mother of the child made a statement saying this did not happen.
Should I believe the member? I cannot believe her because it does not matter what we say or what evidence is presented, she will twist the truth and try to mislead Territorians, which she did this afternoon with a media release …
Mr Bohlin: How did they get the baby to scream its head off?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: They saw a photograph of you - cannot stop screaming.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! That was rather an offensive comment and he should withdraw it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw, please.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is very difficult to hear when members are constantly interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. Again, the report …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister made an offensive comment and you should ask him to withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did ask him to withdraw; and I thought he had.
Mr VATSKALIS: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the CLP does not like the report we presented today and is well-known for trying to bully people who have different opinions. This report is not …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The minister continues to be offensive towards members on this side of the House. Can you ask him to withdraw that last comment, please?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw that word, please
Mr VATSKALIS: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Again, if they do not like the report they will find something to criticise; to accuse the committee that because it was wined and dined it produced a sanitised report which was completely and utterly deceptive. That is what the member for Araluen said yesterday and it is recorded in Hansard. You can ask me many times to withdraw it but I will not because it is written down and will stay there for a long time - forever.
This committee met with members of the public in Darwin and Alice Springs, met with carers, met with public servants outside the department and, as stated in the report, was impressed with the frank comments of all people involved. There are quite a few things here for the department and the government - any government - to learn. At the end of the day, the committee commented the government is on track, has implemented all the recommendations, and the committee believes this is the way to go to resolve the issues with child protection.
We made a commitment to change the child protection system. The child protection system was in crisis. It was in crisis over the past 27 or 37 years, and that has been identified by the report, The State of Denial, which condemned …
Mrs Lambley: What about the Ombudsman’s report?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: I will come to that. … the last 10 years of the CLP government. The most damning – I read many quotes from that report; however, it says the then Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services: ‘Territory Health is not meeting its obligations as prescribed under the Northern Territory Community Welfare Act 1983’. To put it simply, it walked away from its obligations to protect children in the Northern Territory. I would like to personally thank the member for Araluen, who brought this report to my attention in one of the comments she made. I looked at it and nearly fell off my chair. How strong it was, how little the CLP government of the day …
Mrs Lambley: It is a pity we cannot thank you for changing …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: How little the then CLP government did for children! Our government not only says it will support children - I have said to members opposite that this is not a job for a single government. This is not a job for a government of any particular political persuasion. This is a matter for our community as a whole, and I would be pleased to work with members opposite. There are problems; however, instead of highlighting the problems let us highlight the possible solutions. Your professional background is in welfare; you should be able to offer solutions which probably …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: You can make suggestions and we can work together to find solutions. Not all the things we suggest are perfect or good. We have to try to find the best solution to ensure children in the Territory not only feel safe, they are safe.
We have found that while we have a parallel health system in the Territory - Indigenous controlled medical services never had anything to do with Children and Families. We cannot claim we know everything about Indigenous families. There are different cultural issues and different ways of doing business. The tyranny of distance plays a significant role and we had to have something to focus on Indigenous families, Indigenous children and Indigenous issues.
That is why we are funding AMSANT to establish a new Aboriginal child, youth and family peak body. We are not establishing a different system; we are establishing a system to work with the Department of Children and Families the same way the Indigenous medical services work together with the Health department to provide the best services to people living outside the urban centres, outside the northern suburbs. There are ongoing difficulties in recruiting and retaining people and we have put in place solutions to recruit people and ensure they stay, especially in areas outside Darwin, by providing incentives in salary, training and holidays. We want to bring people into the system.
We have a significant number of Indigenous kids coming to our attention. We try to train Indigenous people to become child protection workers like in Queensland, and are adopting that training program in order to succeed. It is important, if we are going to address issues with children, that we understand the system well, the culture and how Indigenous families function. It is important the department of children’s services should not be the little brother of a big organisation; it should be a separate department. We will establish a separate department in its own right with its own chief executive officer who has responsibilities and rights; not a little brother to another department.
There are many things to do. It is not going to happen today; it is going to happen in the next five to 10 years. The problem with children’s services is we have to address an increasing number of notifications with the number of staff we have currently. We have difficulties, like other states, in recruiting new people. It is a difficult profession. People can work there for two years and burn out. I have friends working in the system and some can only last two years. It is like being a nurse in a war zone. You can take so much then you have to get out in order to survive physically and psychologically. I acknowledge that there are difficulties.
I turn to the Ombudsman’s report. The Ombudsman commenced her report in November 2009 and examined a number of cases - 17 or 18 kids, which were historical cases. She referred to a number of issues identified by the board of inquiry. We now have two reports: the board of inquiry report and the Ombudsman’s report. If you look at them in parallel, you find many similarities. The Ombudsman’s report told us what we decided to do was the right thing because she referred to issues identified by the board of inquiry - the issues we decided we have to address head on, no ifs and buts. It is not only money; it is changing the culture in the department, changing the way we do our job, and identifying some of the bottlenecks and issues.
One of the things you mentioned was how to notify the authorities - by fax, e-mail or telephone? Personally, receiving an e-mail is good; however, if I want information I pick up the telephone and talk to someone - probably a combination of the three, although fax is a little old-fashioned nowadays; a combination of e-mail and person to person would be the best solution.
With regard to the timing of the Ombudsman’s report, on 29 June I received a draft report from the Ombudsman. Looking at the report, a number of issues came to my attention. One was identifying the children, the other was my suspicion I was not the right minister to present the report, and the third was natural justice. We sought legal advice from the Solicitor-General and it was confirmed section 301 of the Care and Protection of Children Act did not apply to the Ombudsman’s report. However, it created the issue of identifying children, especially in a small community like ours. The other thing that came to my attention was I was not the right minister under the Administrative Arrangements Order to present the report
The third issue was natural justice. When you name a public servant in a report you should give that person the opportunity to respond. I wrote to the Ombudsman advising her of the finding and, very kindly, the Ombudsman admitted it was an oversight on her behalf. She gave it to me rather than the Chief Minister, who is the minister responsible. She then forwarded the report to the Chief Minister who then, under the Administrative Arrangements Order, has to present it to parliament within 60 days. There was no attempt by me to hide the report. It always had to be presented to parliament, but it had to be done in the proper way.
With regard to the issue of the children, the department advised me that, because of the way the children were identified in the report, it would create problems. I asked the Ombudsman if we could provide a copy of the report to the Children’s Commissioner. She said she could not because it had to be presented to the minister, who then had to table it in parliament. Only the minister could provide it to the Children’s Commissioner. The Chief Minister forwarded a copy of the report to the Children’s Commissioner. Yes, the process can be cumbersome; however, it has to be done a certain way to fulfil the legal obligations of ministers, the Chief Minister and the Ombudsman. The report was tabled in parliament yesterday.
Our system has not been perfect for many years. It has problems; it was in crisis and, in some areas, it did not work at all. The State of Denial identified from 1991 to 2001 there was a complete breakdown of the system, especially outside urban communities, and that was inherited by this government. As Alyssa Betts says in her article: we were left holding the baby. However, I made a commitment on October 2010, when I stood next to the Chief Minister presenting the report of the board of inquiry, to fix the system. The system was broken and we are building it from the bottom up to ensure children in the Territory will not only feel safe, they will be safe.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I will start by saying this is not the first time, and it will not be the last time – when we look at all of the reports tabled in this House, we have to have an understanding of where we are travelling and that we are dealing with vulnerable children. We are talking about and dealing with the future generation of the place we all love and enjoy; the Northern Territory.
The Ombudsman’s report is a real indictment, not just on all of us in this House, but past governments and us as Territorians, that we failed these children. I thank the frontline staff of Family and Community Services. I said in estimates in front of the minister: ‘When you sit at Kentucky Fried Chicken and see people like Mitch, Vicky, and Fraser picking up these children and taking them home, you can see the commitment these people have for looking after these children’.
You have to look at these reports in context. Minister, I looked at a small report from the committee you appointed. It addresses the recommendations of the inquiry, but it does not mean we overlook this massive Ombudsman’s report and say we will not deal with it because it happened in the past. She is talking about things that happened in the past. We cannot do that because we have to be committed to all those people who gave evidence to the Ombudsman about what they saw as failures of the department; the system that was failing black or white children of the Territory. There might be only 2%, 5% or 10% of non-Indigenous kids in the care of the CEO. There is a higher number of Indigenous kids in the care of the CEO. This is a real indictment on all of us in this House.
When we debate this type of issue we need to show respect and listen to each other. What I heard when the Deputy Speaker used the gavel does not show you speak with passion and care for these children if that is the rabble we have to accept when dealing with serious issues pertaining to our children of the Northern Territory.
I take this opportunity to talk about the frontline staff because I have dealt with many of them, not just at Kentucky Fried Chicken, but with a case where my niece’s children were involved. We used two cars - my own vehicle plus Family and Community Services - to take these children to communities. It is about interacting with each other and helping each other out, because it is not just the problem of the Northern Territory government. One day you will be on that side and the blame will be put on you. There has to be a real, conscious decision made by all of us that when we are addressing these issues, we talk on the rights of the child, the violation of the child, and not blame people. We are all to blame in this - every single one of us sitting in this House has had the opportunity. That side of the House had it for 27 years, and that side of the House had it for 10 years. The blame game will continue; however, when dealing with our vulnerable children we should not play the blame game; we should read the reports.
I know several people on the committee and they are very professional people. Terry Murphy dealt with the Gordon inquiry in Western Australia, the largest jurisdiction to have an inquiry. He is a fantastic person to have on the committee and will get us all focused on making the system better. That is what we are all about, making the system better for the children.
How can we have a system our children are not suffering and dying under? I will not talk about any recent deaths because those families are close to me and the member for Stuart. It would not be right for me to talk about that. It is about us being focused on the issues and helping whoever is in government to make the system better. If you look at these reports - I know they are trying. I would be the first one to be critical of something I knew was not working because I am there on the ground. I have recently returned from a place where I saw two children placed back in the care of their family. I sat there for several days and thought: ‘Oh, my God, these children do not understand language’, but they are learning. The little girl said to me: ‘Aunty Alison, I know what palkala means now’. I said, ‘What does it mean?’ She said, ‘Get up’, and I said, ‘You are right’, so she is learning.
We have to put these children back into the care of their families, but we have to ensure we watch them; that the transition into their family is secure, that we watch the journey between the department and returning to the community because it is going to be very hard for them growing up with non-Indigenous families to then be in an environment that is totally different and with language barriers. This transition, from all these recommendations, is to ensure the first priority is for the safety of the child but uniting those children with their families and their communities.
The minister has acknowledged this previously, we do not want to see a different system for black kids; we want a system for children. First and foremost, our primary responsibility has to be for the safety of the child. We have to ensure the child, when it transitions from the department and the care of the CEO back to the community and family, has a safe journey because, at the end of the day, I look at FACS workers as authors. They are the authors writing a book about those children’s lives. Do not forget that one day those children will return to look at their file. They will come back when they are 18 or 19 and say: ‘Can I look at my journey, where I come from?’ As authors, and as politicians standing inside this House, we have to be very careful and sensitive to the things we say and do when dealing with vulnerable children. These children have been through all types of grief, and because of the grief and hurt they have been through no one wants to see them - that is in the care of the CEO. The ultimate goal has to be we transition these children back into their communities with their parents, or their next of kin, but not in a manner that is hurtful or selfish, or not thinking what situation we might be putting that person in.
There has to be thorough investigation and interaction between the department, the community and the people who will be looking after these children - background checks on people ensuring they have a good home life, are not drinking, not on ganja, and that there is a loving, caring family and a loving, caring community waiting for that child. That has to be the ultimate goal for any of us who debate these issues in this House.
The recommendations of the ministerial appointed committee are telling us the inquiry’s recommendations are heading on the right path; it is focusing on what the inquiry spoke about. We will see differences but, as the minister said, we will not see the differences tomorrow. Our expectation should be to see small changes happen quickly - changes happen later on.
I am not excluding or saying to anyone we should ignore or throw the Ombudsman’s report out. It is an indictment on us in this House and we have to take into consideration, not the political position of the Ombudsman, but look at the people who reported the concerns they had with the department and ensure we, on behalf of those people, address those issues, because that is serious.
If we exclude this saying it happened, we are not going to look at it, we are saying to these people: ‘We do not believe what you said. What you said to the department does not matter’. We cannot do that. We have to keep in mind all those people who went to the Ombudsman with their complaints about secure undertakings for the children. If we do not do that, we are in serious strife. Those people will come back, and I do not want to be in a position where I have to defend myself outside and tell someone we threw away the Ombudsman’s report and that person say: ‘I was one of the people who reported what was happening in the department to the Ombudsman’.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the people who went to the Ombudsman, we have to take this report seriously and look at some of the things said.
Mr ELFERINK: (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Araluen for bringing this forward. I thank the minister for his response, and the member for Macdonnell for her response. Perhaps I show an affinity not many other members of this House share with the member for Macdonnell, with the exception of the member herself. In the eight years I spent in the bush in Central Australia, I was aware of many of the issues she spoke about.
I was angst-ridden to hear the minister say the life span of a childcare worker was about two years and compared a childcare worker in the Northern Territory to a nurse working in a war zone. In spite of the many reports we have heard, it is still saddening to hear childcare workers are expected to have an expiry date attached to them from battle fatigue. That is frustrating to listen to.
Part of my criticism in relation to the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee is because it reflects an attitude in the intelligentsia of this country which has been around since the time of settlement. It is more subtle than it used to be but is, nevertheless, pronounced. I do not want to walk on eggshells around Professor Vimpani, Dr Silburn, Mr Murphy, Mr Hytten, or Ms Neihus, or any of the members of the committee when they, with approval, cast their eyes on the type of judgments they do. Any person, in any field, should not be beyond criticism and when they err, we in this House should not be ashamed to point that out to them.
One of the threads we heard in the Growing them strong, together report - the member for Fong Lim has spoken about this and I agree, we are attempting to Aboriginalise this issue. Yes, the overwhelming number of kids in the care and protection of the department are of Aboriginal descent. My response to that is: ‘So what?’ The member for Macdonnell attends to those issues in her comments when she says this affects black kids and white kids and is not about placing them in black or white homes; it is about placing them in loving homes.
I become irritated when the authors of the Growing them strong, together report decide there is some type of racial quality to love; some racial quality to liberty and some racial quality to the protection a community deserves. This point was being made by the member for Braitling when he accused the government of racist policies - the federal government does it too. We have an Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
Why do we not have descendants of the original owners of the Northern Territory land rights act? That would be more accurate than an Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which has a definition of who is an Aboriginal person. This stuff is eugenics; it comes from the 1930s. This is the hokum from phrenology. For goodness sake, we should be beyond this racist argument we keep perpetrating. It is threaded in not only the observations, but the solutions of the Growing them strong, together report. Now the government is committed to taking each and every one of those solutions on board, it has committed to, essentially, a racist response. It is supported by what I would call unintended but nevertheless racist intelligentsia. That is where we get ridiculous comments about comparing Aboriginal people’s injury rates to Neolithic Britons and Iron Age Italians.
Surely, the quality of liberty is not restricted to a racial group. It is liberty we should be protecting in these circumstances; the liberty of children to enjoy an unmolested childhood regardless of who they are. However, this bigotry we find in these instruments resonates throughout this government’s response. Yes, a higher proportion of Aboriginal children suffer abuse. There will be a percentage somewhere in a report - 20% of Aboriginal kids will be abused whereas in the white community it will be 5% or whatever. We then focus on Aboriginal kids. Here is a thought: 100% of abused children are abused. Perhaps we should be looking at policies that deal with abused children.
This government tries, I suspect genuinely, to deal with these issues but sees it as a political issue. Dealing with political issues gets us into the race argument. Dealing with political issues sees people like Sue Mansfield investigated by government for her conduct. It is a political response. I sat in front of Clare Gardiner-Barnes and the minister and was told people should feel empowered to come forward and speak out when they see wrong. I thought that was a breath of fresh air. You could imagine my disappointment and, needless to say, the disappointment of Sue Mansfield, when she discovered she was being investigated. There is an environment of fear inside the department.
I suspect much of the stress suffered by the frontline workers is not from the work they do. I suspect the majority of stress frontline workers suffer is because of the level of micromanagement brought to bear because of frightened ministers and senior public servants trying their hardest to ensure they control what is happening. What is happening is not the protection of children; it is ensuring the right messages go out. That, unfortunately, is what this is about: getting the right message out.
The minister said: ‘What are the fixes? You make some suggestion about fixes’. The minister has, on repeated occasions, made the simple assertion that this is no longer a problem for the child welfare department, it is a whole-of-community response. If that is true, the government should take a whole-of-community response attitude and make all the changes necessary to bring about an environment of better health for families. This does not mean government gets involved in families. In fact, I argue the primary role, in some instances, is for government to step away.
Here is a fix. Get jobs happening in the remote communities of the Territory where you have higher levels of abuse and neglect. How do you do that? Look at the structures in place. There is a direct link between the failure of the Aboriginal Lands Rights Act to generate wealth and jobs and child protection. Let us acknowledge that. To that end, I would like the Northern Territory government to ask the federal government for the patriation of the Lands Rights Act to the Northern Territory - not to take Aboriginal land away, but at least allow Aboriginal land to generate wealth. Will that fix all child abuse and neglect? No, but it will substantially reduce it if those things occur.
I would prefer to see the levels of child abuse and neglect in the remote parts of the Northern Territory reflect our major centres for no other reason than it would be an improvement. I will echo the words of Galarrwuy Yunupingu - do something about welfare. Welfare is a toxin. Our best intention to help people living in remote parts of the Territory, even in our major centres, is to give them money. Giving money has killed more people in the Northern Territory than all other policies put together pertaining to Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people die in higher rates than they have ever done, even during times of the most extreme policies which sought to limit their future. There is a thought.
I am aware this jurisdiction cannot do anything about welfare; however, it can start knocking on the door in Canberra. If you are worried about the race-based component simply say: ‘We want a compulsory work-for-the-dole scheme in the Northern Territory’ - full stop - whether it is in Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Yuendumu or Millingimbi - not with a view to punishing these people but, for God’s sake, getting them back into jobs. Whilst I have my differences with the member for Nelson, I agree with him: get people working. The minister for Corrections says in his policy statements we have to get people working; it is all about getting people working. Hallelujah!
Why do we not say the welfare system operating in this jurisdiction should be targeted at getting people to work? If you want to protect children, give the people around those children something to do. It does not matter what colour they are. From that, hopefully, you will get respect for liberty so people will see value in their lives and, consequently, project that respect for value in their lives to the values in other people’s lives, including their children. Also, respect for something as simple as property will go a long way to addressing the issues that keep occurring.
The minister is right: it is beyond the capacity of government to fix this problem. It was beyond the capacity of the former government and, in spite of the fluffing around with numbers, there is no doubt this government is spending more with negligible results at best. Government cannot tell people how to live their lives. All we can do is create an environment in which people can create lives for themselves. If we allow that environment to flourish in such a way that people are occupied with professions, jobs, or other such labours, we can create an environment which will protect children more effectively. This will not be achieved by government running a nanny state; it will not be achieved by government at the helm steering the ship expecting all crew members to play the game. It will never be completely achieved, but it will be achieved by people having the rights and liberties to protect themselves and to earn and gain respect for themselves and, consequently, other people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, any government that talks about child protection without talking about jobs, without talking about rights and liberties, without talking about the removal of welfare, is not talking about a program that will successfully attend to the issues these people face. Let us get rid of the nanny state. Let us make people responsible for themselves so they can enjoy the fruits of their labours and, hopefully, through that process, I would expect children would be far more treasured, respected and valued than they are under the current government’s policy, both in the Territory and federally.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my parliamentary colleague, the member for Casuarina, who has updated this House on the substantial work the Henderson government has undertaken to build the new approach to child protection which was envisaged by the board of inquiry. As the member for Casuarina described, the Henderson government’s response to the board of inquiry and its recommendations has built on the work this government has already done to boost the care and protection of children, and to ensure we have the best possible system in place involving everybody for our important asset, our children.
When we came to government in 2001, child protection in the Northern Territory government was severely neglected. The child protection budget for the Northern Territory was a meagre $7m. Under the Henderson Labor government, the current 2011-12 budget stands at $182m. To put that into perspective, child protection services have been expanded by this government to include family support services, youth services, out of home care services, and homelessness. We have also created the position of the Children’s Commissioner for the first time in the Northern Territory. It was the Labor government which called for the most comprehensive inquiry into the Northern Territory’s child protection system, the board of inquiry. The board of inquiry was a culmination of the work of Territory Labor over the last decade.
In October 2009, in my role as then Minister for Child Protection, I announced a review of the notification systems within NT Families and Children. As I have said in this House before, it was clear to me, particularly after talking to medical professionals and the AMA, that we had reached a tipping point. I spoke to the Chief Minister about the need for a broad-ranging public inquiry into the Northern Territory’s child protection system. Those people on the board of inquiry, Howard Bath, Muriel Bamblett and Dr Rob Roseby have done significant work across the Northern Territory. They reported in their recommendations a number of things which centred largely on supporting our families across the Northern Territory, not only in Darwin and Alice Springs, but across the regions.
The board of inquiry has given the Henderson government a clear and ongoing focus to work in partnership with the community to build a new child protection and family support system over the next five years. The recommendations arising from the inquiry have enabled us to reshape the system so every child and family in need will have access to support, and that kids at risk are properly identified and cared for.
The inquiry’s report and recommendations present, as the member for Macdonnell said, each of us in the Northern Territory parliament, right across the community of the Northern Territory, parents, families, all levels of government, and the non-government sector, with a new opportunity to refocus, improve, and strengthen the Northern Territory child protection system.
Importantly, the Henderson government is committed to building local leadership and maximising opportunities for all Territorians to build strong families. We recognise a long-term sustained commitment and strong partnership between the government and Indigenous people is essential to future success. That is why it is vital the board of inquiry looked at the delivery of child protection services in regional and remote areas as part of the development of A Working Future. As a minister responsible for A Working Future reforms, it is important we are building strong links between the future of our children and our vision of A Working Future for Territorians living across our regions. I am pleased to report to this House that the local implementation plans, or LIPs, for our growth towns and their service regions include early childhood, including child protection as one of the key building blocks. The LIPs set out the priorities for each community and include targets, actions, success measures, and time lines for achieving these priorities. They are developed through close consultation between government and a local reference group in each of these towns.
Across the Territory growth towns, LIPs for all 15 remote service delivery national partnership agreement priority sites have been endorsed by the Northern Territory government and Australian government and are being implemented. Thirteen of the 15 LIPs have been signed by all stakeholders. The Northern Territory government is progressing developing LIPs for the remaining six Territory growth towns: Papunya, Ali Curung, Elliott, Daguragu, Kalkaringi, Borroloola, and Ramingining. Each of the LIPs contains a range of actions relating to early childhood development and the safety and protection of children. I would like to report to the House some of these examples: Families as First Teachers program being delivered in all local implementation plans; establishment of early childhood coordinators in all LIPs; universal access to preschool for every child in the year before full-time school is identified in all LIPs; minimum service standards for child protection and related services will be developed in all remote service delivery sites; and delivering Certificate III in Community Services in the workplace through the Families as First Teachers program. The development of child and family centres has been identified as an action in LIPs for five communities: Gunbalanya, Hermannsburg, Maningrida, Ngukurr, and Yuendumu.
Other important initiatives contained in some of these LIPs include establishment of a parents committee, including representatives from Health; building the Remote Early Childhood Workforce Pilot project to provide children’s services training for childcare staff, VET in schools, and school-based apprentices for secondary students; making early childhood health checks and vaccinations available at the child and family centre; establishing a community education program around the importance of physical and mental health in early childhood learning; developing and implementing an education program on keeping healthy while pregnant; local people being offered training and employment to deliver parenting programs for young mothers and fathers; education and support programs to reduce smoking, drinking, and poor nutrition during pregnancy; delivering pre-natal nutrition and healthy baby programs; supporting workforce development of local staff to work in and run the new children and family centre; continue the Strong Women, Strong Babies, Strong Culture program to support young mothers parenting education; and building parents’ capacity to engage in their children’s education through community engagement workshops delivered through the Parental and Community Engagement Program.
What is so important about these initiatives is they are underpinned by an understanding that a child does not develop independently of the community in which it lives. I am pleased to report to this House there is close strategic and operational coordination between all levels of government in relation to implementing the outcomes of the board of inquiry, particularly between the service delivery coordination unit within the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, the Department of Education and Training, and the Department of Children and Families. This coordination is facilitated through the remote service delivery board of management which has established an integrated family services working group.
A very important issue addressed by the board of inquiry was how to build and employ the NGO sector in this important work, including Indigenous leadership and advice, and designing and delivering improved family support and appropriate early intervention services. The board of inquiry noted the crucial importance of culturally competent service delivery. The Henderson government has embraced this challenge by establishing the new Aboriginal Child Youth and Families peak body and the appointment of the first chief executive of that peak body, Josie Crawshaw. This new peak body under the leadership of Josie Crawshaw, with two new Aboriginal childcare agencies, will make important and enduring contributions to better family support and child protection outcomes. Ms Crawshaw’s appointment has been welcomed by the CEO of the Secretariat of the National Aboriginal Islander Child Care (SNAICC), Frank Hytten, who hailed Josie’s appointment as:
Natalie Hunter, member of the Darwin reference group for Children, Youth and Families and former SNAICC executive member has also welcomed the appointment of Josie Crawshaw stating:
The peak body will be independent and focus on ensuring government children, youth and family services are culturally appropriate. The peak body will also oversee the establishment of the two new Aboriginal and Islander childcare agencies in Darwin and Alice Springs.
The Henderson Labor government has funded AMSANT to establish the peak body. This mirrors the role of AMSANT’s sister organisation, the Queensland Aboriginal Islander Health Council which auspiced the establishment of a Queensland Aboriginal community control child protection agency for a number of years as a transition to becoming the new peak agency. AMSANT’s clear position is the peak agency under development will not be a service provider. That will be the task of the two new Aboriginal community control childcare agencies. The role of the peak body will provide Aboriginal representation on the issues of child protection, youth and families in the Northern Territory based on a strong coverage of urban, rural and remote communities. It will develop evidence-based policy positions on the issues of child protection, youth and families in the Northern Territory, including monitoring legislation and regulations, continuous quality improvement, accreditation, data collection and analysis, information technology and workforce development.
The peak body will also act as an advocate for the rights of child protection, youth and families in the Northern Territory and conduct and commission research on child protection. Local regional reference groups will be formed across the Territory to provide local leadership and input to the development of the peak agency and the framework for the Aboriginal childcare agencies in Darwin and Alice Springs. This approach is critical to ensure localised analysis of key issues impacting on Aboriginal children, families and young people.
The new peak body is being established in direct response to the recommendations from the expert board of inquiry, Dr Howard Bath, Professor Muriel Bamblett and Dr Rob Roseby. The board of inquiry recommended the Northern Territory government fund the development, establishment and ongoing work of an Aboriginal peak body on child and family safety and wellbeing and child protection. This peak body would support the process of the development of Aboriginal child and family wellbeing and safety and child protection agencies. Such Aboriginal childcare agency or agencies would be developed in stages and such an agency or agencies would be funded by government with a major role in child safety and wellbeing, with consultation to determine how the Aboriginal community should be represented.
The board of inquiry spelt out the need for an Aboriginal-controlled agency or agencies with a major role in child wellbeing, family wellbeing and child protection was absolutely paramount. In particular, the board of inquiry stipulated reform of the system protecting children in the Northern Territory must recognise the Aboriginal child placement principle and involve a fundamental change in the way child protection and family support services involve and interact with Aboriginal people. The board of inquiry also identified a key to creating a safer environment for Aboriginal children is to build the capacity of the Aboriginal community to deal with its own issues. It is likely an Aboriginal-controlled agency will be better able than government to employ and retain Aboriginal staff. The board highlighted for Aboriginal children requiring placement in out-of-home care there are not enough Aboriginal family placements available. The view of the board was an Aboriginal-controlled service is likely to be better able to recruit suitable carers and retain their services than a government department as it is more likely to build engagement and trust by way of better understanding this client group.
Madam Speaker, I conclude by reflecting on the National Aboriginal and Islander Children’s Day event at Jingili Water Gardens, which I had the pleasure of attending on Sunday. The National Aboriginal and Islander Children’s Day is celebrated on 4 August each year. This year, the theme was From small to big: growing stronger every day. This national day of celebration was first observed by SNAICC in 1988, and each year the theme for the National Aboriginal and Islander Children’s Day has highlighted a significant issue, concern, or hope for the year. From small to big: growing stronger every day encapsulates the Henderson government’s deep and long-term commitment to supporting Territorians to build strong families and sustain strong and safe communities for our children, continuing to build on the work this government has already done to boost the care and protection of children ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this matter of public importance brought on by the member for Araluen; that the Northern Territory government needs to answer serious questions regarding the oversight of children in care and protection of the CEO of the Department of Children and Families. ‘Oversight’ is an interesting word when used in a particular context. I am unsure whether it means overlooked because that is appropriate, or is the ‘oversight’ as in you oversee it. It is a very interesting bureaucratic word. In this case it is more appropriate you have overlooked it. The evidence is damning and clear: the Northern Territory government has overlooked the care and protection of children and the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families is, ultimately, responsible according to the minister, who has buck-passed it.
I agree with the member for Araluen: a CEO is responsible to the minister; therefore the minister is ultimately responsible. That is our system of government. No matter what the minister would like to say or how far he has distanced himself from this, he is still, ultimately, responsible. Every child in the Northern Territory is the responsibility of the minister no matter how far he would like to distance himself from it. We have seen, time and time again, this government distancing itself from a problem. We have seen it with the members for Johnston and Casuarina. We see, as soon as there is a problem: ‘Let us put something in between us and the problem, therefore, we are not responsible’.
There is no better area of government where Labor has displayed complete neglect of Territorians or issues facing the Northern Territory than in the area of child protection. We see case after case of neglect. It has demonstrated that when it comes to the protection of Territory children, Labor is not up to the job. We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the election of the Labor government and since 2001 there have been five failed child protection ministers, four of whom were sacked because of incompetence. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of child protection, a commitment to child protection or a successful child protection regime.
Over the past 10 years, there have been numerous reviews and inquiries into the Territory’s child protection system. Shall we go through them? We can start in 2007 - I do not have the copy unfortunately; however, that was the big one, the one that started the ball rolling, the Little Children are Sacred report. In November 2007, we saw the Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit, otherwise known as the Bath Report. I have the executive summary of the Bath Report of November 2007. Then we have the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission report on investigation of Royal Darwin Hospital’s security arrangements for the protection of children and infants. That was November 2008. This follows the appalling situation where a child was sexually abused in the paediatric ward at Royal Darwin Hospital. It basically spelt the end of the former Minister for Health, the member for Johnston. He would know that very well. He has never quite recovered from that and his credibility remains in tatters as a result.
Then we have the Tolhurst report in June 2009 into the NTFC Intake Service, another damning report into the Northern Territory government’s child protection service. We have one from February 2010, Office of the Children’s Commissioner of the Northern Territory, a report relating to a child protection notification made to Northern Territory Families and Children in respect of Baby B M - another one just three months later. Then we have the Growing them strong, together report essentially commissioned under sustained pressure from the opposition. The government was dragged kicking and screaming to address issues facing child protection and children and families’ matters across the Northern Territory by the Northern Territory opposition. As a result, we have the Growing them strong, together report, another damning report.
Now we have the latest A Life Long Shadow, a report of a partial investigation of the child protection authority by the Ombudsman dated June 2011 - a few months old. The most damning thing is that the culture of cover-up is alive and well. It used to be a clich. The culture of cover-up used to be something you could say about the government if the opposition did not get its way; however, four or five years on you guys are good at it; it has become your mantra. The culture of cover-up, the party that covers things up, the party that is proud of the culture of cover-up.
Let us look at page 22 of the report. I will not read the whole thing; I will cherry pick some of the core bits from this section.
Holy cow!
Eventually, the Ombudsman says this not good enough. Under no circumstances in the 21st century in the western world would that be good enough! Thankfully, the minister realised it was not good enough and reluctantly intervened. The department indicated it would not pursue a senior challenge by the Ombudsman to take it to the Supreme Court and realised the situation was not good enough. It realised children were first and foremost and paramount, and their protection is of the utmost importance and a core responsibility of any government of any persuasion in any jurisdiction. The minister reluctantly intervened and indicated he would not pursue a challenge to the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to conduct the investigation.
Furthermore, there was some common sense by the newly appointed CEO of the department of health and families. The Ombudsman pays tribute to him for having some common sense and compassion with regard to the care and protection of children. While I do not agree that the care and protection of children falls squarely in the lap of the CEO, thank goodness it does in this case. If it fell in the lap of any of the five failed ministers, including the current minister, God help the children of the Northern Territory. The current CEO of the department of health and families seems to have a better grip on what is required of him, and what is required of a government when it comes to the care and protection of children than the current minister or the four previous ministers who were sacked because of their incompetence.
Each report highlighted a system in crisis despite promise after promise from the government that the recommendations of each report would be implemented to improve the child protection system. Labor has failed to deliver on these promises. It is abhorrent and a dereliction of the core duty, the fundamental responsibility, we have as adults, parents, legislators, and parliamentarians. The government has failed time and time again.
Madam Speaker, I get the feeling you are about to wind me up. Is that right, or can we continue?
Madam SPEAKER: At 9 pm I will remind you it is 9 pm and you will probably have another two minutes if you wish.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Labor’s performance in government has compromised the care of hundreds of Territory children it has a duty to protect - a fundamental core responsibility. If there is anything we have a core responsibility for, if there is anything in life we are more responsible for, it is the care and protection of children. Is there anything more important than looking after, protecting, caring for, and providing for the children of the Northern Territory?
In 2010 the board of inquiry into the child protection system produced a damning report which showed an almost complete breakdown in child protection and a tsunami of need. I cannot put too fine a point on that: a tsunami of need amongst neglected children in the Territory. Some of the alarming findings contained in that report include …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is now 9 pm. Would you like to have the last few minutes?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, I would, Madam Speaker, three minutes or so to go.
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow that.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you.
One of the findings in that report include the rate of children on care and protection orders in the Northern Territory was the highest across Australia in 2008-09, with 9.2% per 1000 children compared to the national average of 7 per 1000 children. While the proportion of notifications that have resulted in an investigation has increased over threefold, the total number of substantiations appears to have changed little across the years 2003-04 to 2009-10.
There is very little change at all during the life of this government which is hardly surprising with the high churn of child protection ministers we have seen in the last 10 years - five ministers, four of whom had been sacked and I would not be surprised if the current minister is well on his way with some of the stuff he has been presiding over. His stewardship on this issue has been appalling. He does not know his facts; he gets them wrong. The member for Araluen highlighted a number of those today. He blames people for not attending meetings. That is his defence. How pathetic! What is important here? Is it the children of the Northern Territory or the member for Araluen not attending a meeting?
He mentions committee members who are not even on the committee - Donna Ah Chee and Charlie King. They have not been on the committee for some time. There is a vacancy so why not appoint the Ombudsman? Madam Speaker, he is not sure; he is not across the facts. It makes for some good political argy-bargy, but the ones really suffering are the kids of the Northern Territory.
As probably the newest parent in this House, it drives your awareness of how important this issue is. It makes me sick in the stomach when I read some of these things - five-year-old kid being abused and being run over. It is disgraceful! This government has failed. I say to every parent in the Northern Territory: you should hold grave concerns about the ability of the Northern Territory government to care and protect your children under the most vulnerable circumstances.
Discussion concluded.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is now after 9 pm. Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, I propose that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House about the actions this government has taken to support community efforts to encourage more childcare places in Alice Springs. The availability of good quality childcare is vital to the development of children and families. It is something we value as government, and I personally value highly.
As a working family with, at one stage, two kids in care, I know how difficult it can be to access quality care at times. There are also affordability issues as well. My wife has much experience working in the area of school readiness. The importance of getting kids ready for school and valuing going to school cannot be underestimated. It is about ensuring our little kids not only get the vital learning foundation before they go to school, but also the physical and emotional wellbeing for kids and families, setting them up for a healthy and happy future. Getting this important early childhood area right might not have immediate payoffs, but it is valuable long term and something we have to be committed to getting right.
I am committed, as a parent, to getting it right and I am also committed, as a committee representative in Alice Springs, to ensuring we live it well. I also acknowledge the efforts the member for Araluen is putting into this issue for Alice Springs. It is great to have a bipartisan approach to improving the situation for families in our town.
As a result of an initial meeting in June called to address the shortage of childcare places in Alice Springs, my colleague, the member for Johnston, the Education minister, and I wrote to the federal minister, Kate Ellis, urging her to support initiatives to address the shortage of childcare places in Alice Springs especially in the acute need area of places for 0 to 3-year-olds. As member for Stuart, I have lobbied hard to improve childcare services in my electorate, particularly in places like Yuendumu and Mataranka. The Northern Territory government is active in the area of early childhood. We must remember the responsibility for providing more childcare places rests with the federal government. The Northern Territory government is responsible for licensing and regulating, and ensuring our facilities are safe and top quality as our kids deserve.
We are the only government in Australia to provide a childcare subsidy to licensed childcare centres to help keep the costs down for families. We also support the training and development of childcare workers, with the department of Education developing a workforce plan for early childhood. It is an area where we can support and grow our own from local training opportunities. In recognition of the importance of early childhood development, the Northern Territory government is developing an early childhood plan with input from a number of agencies.
At a meeting I attended on the issues in Alice Springs last week, some great ideas and really innovative approaches were put forward to solving this critical issue. Going forward, an action plan is being developed for the group looking at a range of options such as using existing infrastructure, planning for potential sites for childcare centres, workforce reform, and other issues. The input from people such as Margaret Harrison from Congress Child Care, Tony and Alison Haggart from Lil’Ants, Erica Johanssen from Family Day Care Centre, Kerry Espey from Larapinta Preschool, representatives from CDU, Leon Trippe from the town council, and representatives from the Northern Territory and Commonwealth government agencies was invaluable. Input from those at the first meeting, such as Eto Lee from Braitling Neighbourhood Centre, Mariann Reu from Bradshaw Preschool, Michele Thompson from the Community Toy Library, Sharon Watson from Gap Community Child Care, Jenny Cooper from Gillen Preschool, and Navin, Ray and Linda from the YMCA should also be noted and congratulated. The efforts of the many parents to address this issue in such a constructive way must also be applauded - people such as Emma Haskin and many others. I am pleased to see the community coming together to find a way forward to deal with this critical issue, and I fully support those efforts. The next meeting to hear back from the action group will be on 12 October.
Turning to my electorate of Stuart, I pay tribute to a wonderful Pine Creek local, John (Robbo) Robertson. Sadly, John Robertson passed away in Brisbane on 13 May this year. At John (Robbo) Robertson’s memorial service held in Pine Creek on 4 June, he was described as the glue that held Pine Creek together. If there was a community event or someone in need, Mr Robertson was not far away. At his memorial service, he was awarded a 25-year service medal for his tireless work as a volunteer with the Fire and Emergency Rescue group in the Pine Creek area. Robbo worked for 15 years on the Pine Creek Council. He was also President of the Pine Creek Turf Club and instrumental in the forming of a new race track at Pussy Cat Flats.
Over the years, Robbo received many community awards, including Citizen of the Year, Local Hero, and the Pride of Australia True Blue Aussie Award. His face will be sadly missed from every Pine Creek community event where he generously volunteered his time, including Clean Up Australia Day, Anzac Day, Territory Day, the school fete, the Gold Rush Festival, golf tournaments and, of course, the Pine Creek Races.
My sincere condolences go to Robbo’s wife, Booma Chaekkratok, daughter Julie and four sons, Scott, Anthony, Paul and Chris, and their extended families.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to Paul Vanderleur formerly of Camfield Station in the VRD who passed away on 18 June in Brisbane. While I never met Mr Vanderleur, I acknowledge the significant contribution he made to the Northern Territory pastoral industry. The young Paul Vanderleur was sent to the VRD by his father as a 19-year-old, to help establish a new cattle station, Camfield. Conditions were harsh in the 1950s, with none of the infrastructure we see there today. It started from scratch with an enormous amount of work to do in developing what was to become a top working cattle station.
Soon after the Camfield lease was obtained, they began a number of small business ventures to provide working capital: Mataranka Station, a grazing licence for Buffalo Springs near Timber Creek, a depot, and a butcher’s shop in Katherine.
Paul married Betty, who had come to Katherine as a nurse, on 19 April 1958. They took over as managers of Camfield Station. They had three children, Anne, Patricia, and Paul Jnr. Paul worked with the pastoral industry lobby groups to improve a range of issues affecting the pastoral industry. In 1977, Camfield was sold and, by that time, the property was very well developed and included a homestead. After the sale, Betty and Paul moved to Katherine. Paul became a pastoral inspector for Hooker Investments Corporation, overseeing a number of stations in the VRD. In 1984, Peter Sherman offered Paul a position in the same capacity when he purchased VRD. In October 1989, VRD was bought by Robert Holmes Court’s Heytesbury Pastoral Company, and again Paul shared his experience and knowledge until the time came to leave Katherine and retire in Brisbane.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my condolences to Paul’s wife, Betty, and their family on the loss of a husband, father, and a man who will be remembered as a Territory pioneer.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I highlight an issue which confronts the rural area. While we have many serious issues associated with planning, particularly the rural village concept, traffic management issues, dogs, and hooning, this is important and involves the people of Palmerston who are dumping their rubbish in the rural area.
The Litchfield Council operates three main waste facilities or, as I like to call them, rubbish dumps, in Howard Springs, Humpty Doo and Berry Springs. In regard to the Howard Springs dump, which I frequent on a regular basis, as do many other Litchfield council ratepayers …
Mr Wood: Transfer station.
Ms PURICK: I will take up that interjection, transfer station. I like to call them rubbish dumps.
Over the last few months, I have been approached by many constituents who are fed up with the Palmerston people they believe are dumping their rubbish at the Howard Springs rubbish dump. I will explain how and why.
Why they would want to dump their townie rubbish at the Howard Springs dump beats me, as they have a perfectly good rubbish dump at the bottom of Palmerston. However, the tonnage of rubbish increases astronomically when security guards are taken away from the centre. In fact, the tonnage of rubbish received at Howard Springs goes up by 30% when security is taken away from Howard Springs, and that does not include green waste. Everyone knows rural people use all their green waste for all manner of things, including animal feed or mulch, and sometimes decorations, so the increase in green waste is not from the rural area.
Annual tonnage of rubbish at the Howard Springs Waste Transfer facility, aka rubbish dump, is around 4724 tonnes per year. Put an increase of 30% on that and it equals an extra 1417 tonnes of rubbish that has to be managed and removed, with the extra cost being borne by the Litchfield Council and ultimately passed on to ratepayers. They are the people who are not happy and have come to me. The ratepayers of Litchfield Council are not happy and have expressed their views to me in no uncertain terms.
There is no other explanation I can find, or my constituents can find, as to where the extra 30% of rubbish is coming from. The only place it could come from is the eastern side of Palmerston as the Howard Springs rubbish dump is much closer than the Archer rubbish dump on the Elizabeth River part of Palmerston.
I say to the good people of Palmerston, I know you think the rural area is your back yard, but it is not. You are welcome to visit the wonderful attractions the rural area has to offer, but leave them how you find them. We ask you to not go hooning on our roads, do not abandon unwanted and problem dogs in the rural area, and do not use our rubbish dumps. You have your own facilities, please use them.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will let the Palmerston members defend their constituents in a moment. I would like to speak this evening about the achievements of my government in the Central Australia and Barkly regions.
First, Alice Springs is the site of Australia’s largest sun-tracking solar farm, and will provide the Alice Springs community with the opportunity to purchase GreenPower from a local renewable energy source. Uterne, which means ‘bright sunny day’, a $6.6m installation by construction company SunPower, was officially opened on Thursday, 28 July. The installation will provide power straight to the Alice Springs grid and gives everyone the opportunity to invest in renewable energy by purchasing GreenPower through the Power and Water Corporation. All the electricity generated will be sold to Power and Water for a guaranteed price for the next 20 years. This is a great advancement towards a more sustainable energy future for Alice Springs and the Northern Territory, and the development of solar energy is an area where this government continues to lead the way. It is a great advancement and congratulations to the company SunPower.
Alice Springs Airport is also leading the way in renewable energy with its $2.3m solar power station. This project is a finalist in the United Nations Association of Australia 2011 World Environment Day Awards. It has already won a Power and Water Melaleuca award, and two awards from the Engineers Australian Northern Division 2011 Engineering Excellence Awards. This initiative is the first of its kind in the southern hemisphere and provides the airport with a quarter of its daily energy needs. At peak output, the Alice Springs airport solar power station is reducing carbon emissions by an estimated 470 million tonnes, the equivalent of 70 Alice Springs households over the life of the installation. This project is a part of the successful Alice Solar Cities project, and has also solidified partnerships with the Centre for Appropriate Technology, the federal department of climate change, and solar experts, Ingenero and SolFocus. There are now four major large scale solar projects in Alice Springs: Crowne Plaza, Alice Springs Airport, the Alice Springs Aquatic and Leisure Centre, and now the Uterne power station. To everyone involved in the solar energy industry in Alice Springs, congratulations, this is great news.
Community consultations for the new subdivision of Kilgariff are going well. An inquiry by design process was used to garner community input and follow-up community consultations took place in the last week of July. The first area to be developed has been identified in the north of the new suburb, which will deliver 500 lots over the next 10 years. $10m has already been invested into headworks and sewerage pipes are about to be laid. Community involvement and participation in the entire process has been strong and I continue to support this project. I congratulate Mayor Damien Ryan, and the community reference group that has been working hard to ensure we get this right.
Bush Bus has recently expanded its services in Central Australia and is currently trialling services to a further seven communities in the region. These new services will run twice a week to Wallace Rockhole, Ntaria, Ipolera, Areyonga, Titjikala, and Amoonguna. Due to its close proximity to Alice Springs, Santa Teresa community people have approved a one day round trip arrangement. Proprietors Alan, Tahnee, and Ben Passmore have worked tirelessly to bring these new services to fruition. I commend them on their dedication and hard work in bringing regional transport services into reality. These new runs expand the services already being provided to communities such as Docker River, Kintore, Tennant Creek, Yuendumu, and even into South Australia’s Pitjantjatjara lands. A review will be carried out in six months in consultation with those communities. Congratulations to the Passmore family; it is great to see this business expanding.
Alice Springs local, Jess Johannsen, is the first Territorian to be selected for an Australian netball side. She was named in the Australian 19-and-under team to play against Samoa. Jess has played for the NT 19s for two years and this year represented South Australia after winning a scholarship with the Australian Institute of Sport and moving to Adelaide. Jess was in the Territory Storm squad in the Australian national league in 2011 and played a handful of quarters. Jess, who modestly claims she is still an NT girl, has made an amazing debut onto the national netball circuit. Congratulations Jess, well done.
Local Alice Springs identity, Ben Kelleher, recently competed in Beijing and was triumphant over his bigger Chinese opponent Xu Chao, the reigning champion. Ben, as underdog, won in the second round through a technical knockout. This is in mixed martial arts, and Ben will now defend his WKA South Pacific Belt later this month. Congratulations to Ben.
Alice Springs hosted a successful Indigenous Football Festival in early July. One hundred and sixty eight players comprising 12 teams participated. Matt Bulkeley, head of Game Development from the Football Federation of Australia was in Alice Springs for the festival and said Alice Springs was a great venue and paid tribute to the Alice Springs Town Council. The Territory government provided $250 000 over three years to the FFA for this festival to be held in Alice Springs. Indigenous athletes from all corners of Australia travelled to the Centre to participate. Everyone had fun, and the game of soccer has been further enriched through this festival. Former Australian Socceroo, John Moriarty, patron of the event, enthused: ‘The kids are just so enthusiastic, you can just see the spirit oozing out of them … seeing the passion out there, you can see it in the kids’ eyes’. Congratulations to the organisers, participants and also our Sport minister and Minister for Central Australia. I was with him when we met with Football Federation Australia and locked this tournament in, and the minister has been a great champion of it.
Young Territorian, Jake Scobie, is the Australian Under 16 Brazilian Jiu Jitsu champion after winning a gold medal in the male novice over 70 kg GI event at the Australian-Brazilian Jiu Jitsu competition held in Darwin in early July. Now that Jake is an Australian champion, he is qualified to compete in the world championships if he chooses. Congratulations to Jake and his trainer, Sensei Masahiro, and the Gracie Barra School of Jiu Jitsu. A great achievement by another young Territorian. Well done, Jake.
Alice Springs Rugby players, Andrew Herbert, Clint Broomham and Jason Wardrop have been selected to play for Australia in the tour of Papua New Guinea at the end of September. Meanwhile, young Brendon Donnelly will play in the Australian Schoolboy Championships as he was selected to play in the Affiliated States Australian team. Brendon will be playing the highest schoolboy competition in Australia and will be watched by NRL scouts. Congratulations Andrew, Clint, Jason and Brendon. Play well and good luck with your pursuits.
In relation to health achievements, Lorena Walker, an Alice Springs dental assistant, has been selected as one of five Indigenous role models across Australia to headline a national multimedia campaign promoting health heroes. For six years, Lorena has been a dental assistant at the Flynn Drive Community Dental Clinic and says she has enjoyed working in dental health right in the middle of Alice Springs. Lorena thinks dentistry is good career and has plans to undertake university studies - a Bachelor of Oral Health. We need to congratulate people such as Lorena Walker for the work she has done in the dental profession and being such a great role model for young people across Central Australia.
In relation to education, the Alice Springs School of the Air celebrated its 60th anniversary on 9 May 2011. Our Minister for Central Australia officiated at this significant event and recognised it was the first radio school in Australia. Today, in 2011, it continues to break new ground in the technological delivery of education across Central Australia further ensuring every child in the Northern Territory has access to quality education wherever they may be living. Congratulations to all students, families and teachers who have been involved in this amazing institution over the 60 years of its vital existence.
In relation to the Arts, Josiah McAllan from Alice Springs is a boy soprano with the Junior Gondwana National Choir. The Junior Gondwana Choir is an entry-level training choir which caters for children with treble voices aged 10- to 13-years old. He is the only choir member from Alice Springs and recently travelled with the choir to Tasmania. Congratulations to Josiah, and we hope you keep up the good work.
Now to the magnificent Alice Springs Beanie Festival. What started as a small fun-time thing to do 15 years ago has grown into an event of national significance. At the Alice Springs Beanie Festival an all-time record of over $200 000-worth of sales over four days was achieved. That is a lot of beanies - $200 000-worth of sales with over 6500 beanies from all over Australia being sold. This is also a fantastic cross-cultural event with high levels of participation, predominantly women from Indigenous communities throughout Central Australia sitting and weaving, knitting and creating beanies along with tourists from Byron Bay, Broome or Ballarat. With the open night attracting over 2500 locals, people from across the region and tourists, both national and international, Alice Springs was buzzing with artistic creativity.
Events such as these cannot be successful without the tireless work and commitment of committee members and, in particular, I acknowledge the amazing voluntary work from both chairperson, Faye Epstien, and long-term organiser, Jo Nixon. Congratulations to all involved. Well done, and we will continue talking about Central Australia tomorrow night.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am forced tonight to defend the good people of Palmerston from one of my own colleagues, and all in regard to rubbish. Having a little knowledge of the history of rubbish from Darwin City Council and Palmerston Council, and the promise from this government that at some stage we are going to have a tri-service regional waste facility in the rural area, we do not seem to be any closer to having it.
Most people do not realise that the government issues licences for rubbish dumps and local council manages dumps. I recall, when working with the City of Palmerston, that the Palmerston dump filled up quickly and many of the people who used it were not from the Palmerston area. There was much evidence that builders or landscapers would dump their waste in Palmerston rather than go to the Darwin dump where they were charged by weight. Today, you can still dump your waste in Palmerston at no cost and most of the wet material is transferred to the Darwin facility. You must congratulate Darwin City Council as over all these years it has had an excellent waste facility. If you have a business where you receive waste and can make a few dollars out of it, you should be congratulated.
Today, it makes money from the Op shop, from charging people to drop green waste – businesses, etcetera - then turns it into mulch and uses it for council facilities as well as selling it to the general public. The wet waste, over the years, has created enough gas to run a power plant. It is a wonderful facility. I have thought for years that the Darwin City Council and the Northern Territory government have had a conspiracy the stop the dump - the major regional facility - being constructed because there is a dollar or two in it. Darwin City Council must make money out of waste coming from Palmerston and the rural area.
The member for Goyder has her reasons for suggesting as much as 30% of the waste is coming from Palmerston. It would be quality waste if it was coming from Palmerston. I had to defend Palmerston residents.
I want to talk about a Power and Water easement running down Roystonea Avenue, Gunn. Last year I wrote to the appropriate minister regarding what appeared to happen at the top of Roystonea Avenue. Work was being done there and the water had been diverted down the side where all the houses border the easement. So much water was coming down it eroded fence lines to the point one big, metal fence collapsed. To his credit, the minister had arranged retribution …
A member: Restitution.
Mr CHANDLER: Retribution is the wrong word.
The water had undermined this fence to the point where it collapsed. I wrote to the minister, and the minister was kind enough to ensure the fence was repaired. They also created a natural drain so, in future, the water would run into the correct drains. They cleaned out the drains which fixed the problem. Not only did they fix the fence lines, they also created a proper drain for the water and cleaned out the drains. It was a fantastic job.
The unfortunate thing is now, with the new pipe works going through to Johnston, the entire area has been dug up. The job is halfway through, I appreciate that. A number of residents have contacted me recently for a number of reasons. One is that Terry Drive still has a cut in the road to put the pipe works in and it has been like that for months now. We understand it would need to compact before bitumen can be put over it, but it has gone on for months and months now. There is a terrible lump in the road. What I can see coming next Wet Season is if they put too much soil back in the area it will create a mound where fence lines will be lower than the mound of dirt. With the rains of the Wet Season, we will not have one fence fall over, we will have all the fences in Roystonea Avenue fall. I ask the minister, when Power and Water do rectification works after the job is complete, can they take this into consideration so we do not have fences falling down, or dirty rainwater and mud flowing into people’s back yards where pools are, because it is going to become very mucky come the Wet Season.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I had the wonderful opportunity of attending the Uterne Solar Power Station in Alice Springs the week before last ...
Mr Wood: Did you drive down?
Mr CHANDLER: No, no.
Mr Wood: All right, just checking.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you. I learnt much about solar power stations. This is the largest single solar power station in Australia at this stage, producing 1MW of power. It is a great agreement between a private company and the federal government, which funded half the cost.
I found it amazing that you are opening the largest solar power station in Australia and the federal government could not send a minister, or even a member of parliament, to attend the opening. The member for Barkly was there, so was Mayor Damien Ryan, who did a wonderful job of opening the facility. I find it amazing that the largest solar panel power station in Australia, which was 50% federally-funded, and the federal government did not bother to send someone to open the facility. I find that quite bizarre. In fact, maybe it is spending more time, is more worried, or eager to discuss the carbon tax than real facilities like this which provide what can be the future of energy for many areas in this country.
I also learnt several things about solar power and how this, being a 1MW solar power station - much electricity - one of the downsides is Power and Water has to ensure it has enough reserve spinning power if a cloud goes over, because if it loses 1MW off the grid it has to have the spinning reserve to pick up so Alice Springs does not brown out. These are some of the complications the solar industry is yet to overcome.
Sometimes we have to step back and look at some of the renewable energy sources we have in this country and not put all our eggs in the one basket. At the end of the day, there are limitations to what can be delivered both through cost and infrastructure. I mentioned yesterday how some of the best opportunities for geothermal in this country are in the most remote areas. The infrastructure to get it to where the grids and customers are is cost-prohibitive at this stage.
The future is a wonderful thing because it is a time when we will have new technology. Maybe we should go back to Nikola Tesla and send some of this electricity through the air without wires; that would be interesting. Things will evolve as technology evolves, as we evolve as a species, and renewable energy is a real chance to make a difference in this country. We need to temper that with the reality it can be cost-prohibitive. It is hard to argue, when you have a tight budget, for something that might cost you three times the amount of money when a cheaper alternative is available. Money is not an endless stream. Governments have budgets and should stick to those budgets. Sometimes we need to temper what we can provide for the community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on several issues, one being the matter raised by the member for Goyder. Honestly, without Litchfield, Palmerston would not exist because Darwin River Dam is in Litchfield, the Channel Island Power Station is in Litchfield, and all the sand that builds the houses is in Litchfield. I do not know why Palmerston is so ungrateful.
On a slightly more serious note with regard to the tip, or the waste transfer station, I cannot see why two councils cannot get together and share the facility as the suburbs of Palmerston, Zuccoli and Johnston, will only be half a kilometre away from that transfer station. It is time the two councils got together, bury their parochialism, and share it.
I would like to relate a story from a resident who came to see me this week. The minister for Education and the minister for Police might be interested in this. It is a tale of bureaucracy gone mad. I was recently approached by a teacher of 31 years in the Northern Territory who was registered by the TRB and also has an Ochre Card. He went on long service leave, came back from holidays at the end of first semester this year, and found his teacher registration had run out in January. Because of this, he had to fill out another form approved by the principal, have another police check and produce a birth certificate - which the Teacher Registration Board could not find. The new registration cost $115 instead of the usual $75 and, of course, there was the cost of another birth certificate.
After three weeks nothing happened between the Teacher Registration Board and SAFE-NT, which was conducting the police check. Let us not forget the teacher was previously registered and had an Ochre Card. There was much toing and froing between the Teacher Registration Board and SAFE-NT and, last Friday, he received an e-mail from the Teacher Registration Board saying he had an offence recorded and also had not filled out the form correctly. He did not know anything about this and tried to find out about the offence as he could not recall anything wrong. Let us not forget; he was a registered teacher and had an Ochre Card. No one would tell him. The Teacher Registration Board said it did not know. The director of the Teacher Registration Board wanted to know what the offence was, but the teacher could not tell him. This meant he could not teach and the school he taught at had to bring in another teacher to deliver his classes at taxpayers’ expense.
SAFE-NT could not tell him and told him to ring the director. The director was at a meeting; he left a message to ring but there was no response. He went to the Palmerston Police Station but they would not tell him. They gave him another number to ring in police and they also would not tell him. He finally went back to SAFE-NT yesterday and was told he needed to e-mail the director of SAFE-NT, which he did, and at last he was told of the offence: in 1990 he received a speeding ticket - 21 years ago - for doing 100 km/h in a 70 km/h zone which cost him, at that time, $80 plus $25 costs - a total of $125.
There is some good news. In the meantime – yesterday - he was informed he has been given interim registration until 1 September, which is when the Teacher Registration Board next sits. It has cost him time, money, and frustration, and has cost the taxpayer wages for an extra teacher for two weeks at the school. Madam Deputy Speaker, surely that is a tale of bureaucracy gone mad.
I would also like to talk about several events in my area. People might know Girraween Primary School is famous for its garden. It won the school category winner of the Melaleuca Awards for the year. I will read from the Power and Water flier which said:
That is from last year’s awards. This year they also had Sustainability Day; a fantastic day. What other school has cattle? They have some nice Brahman cattle in a fenced off area. They have chooks, eggs, butterflies, veggies and were selling turkey bush tea, which I must admit is an acquired taste. They were selling rosella jam. They have a flower garden with ABC marked out in the school grounds because they have also been involved with the ABC garden competition. They had a Sustainability Day where they invited schools from as far south as Katherine and Ngukurr. Many Palmerston, Darwin, and rural schools visited and had a great day discussing anything from recycling, composting, saving power – all the things you would expect on a sustainability day.
What made it such a special day, and no one knew - yes, member for Nhulunbuy, I had forgotten you attended. Sorry, member for Nhulunbuy, my apologies - she opened the day and I will never live that down. Also, Jessica Mauboy turned up, which made the day. She is a fantastic lady. She did a concert with the kids and is just the same old Jessica. Years ago she would sing with Judy Weepers at The Beat, would sing at Carols by Candlelight, and has done charity concerts at Freds Pass. She has not changed. She might look flash with all the stars, but when she came to Girraween Primary School she was fantastic. We really appreciate what she did that day. I am really proud of this lady, not because I know her better than anyone else - she wrote me a nice note while I took a photograph of her holding a chook - you would have seen recently she refused sponsorship from an alcohol company. I say: ‘Good on her’. That takes guts. They were offering a large amount of money and she has done the right thing. I say publicly that if there were more people like her we would have many more role models in our society for young people to follow. Well done, Jessica.
We had a great concert and everyone enjoyed it. Jessica had two concerts, one for the people who attended the Sustainability Day from the schools, and the other later for the rest of the school.
Howard Springs school - I sometimes have my concerns about mixing and matching of plants and things; however, they have one of the best vegetable gardens you will ever see. I visited recently …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: This one is great. Tim West, from Greening Australia, has a bit to do with this. It is a fantastic garden. They have cauliflowers, which you do not see too often in the Northern Territory. They had broccoli; tomatoes everywhere; corn with no caterpillars; capsicums; herbs; onions; carrots, which were not looking too good but might be the wrong variety. It is a fantastic garden, one of the best. Much work has gone into it, not only by the students and teachers, but under the direction of Tim West from Greening Australia. I congratulate Howard Springs school.
So people know, St Francis of Assisi on Challoner Circuit, Humpty Doo is having a boot sale this Saturday between 8 am and 12 noon.
I was surprised to read on page 9 of the paper today the Pelly Road/Lorikeet Court subdivision which was flooded - the Ombudsman is reported as saying she is not conducting a review. I rang her and mentioned I was surprised because one of her staff has been doing a review of this for quite some time. At least we thought that. I now discover from the Ombudsman that the review is not happening. I am a confused about that, as are the residents. I explained to them tonight the Ombudsman has said, according to the paper, she is going to start the review. Most of us believed the review was well and truly under way. I wrote to the Ombudsman several months ago. A representative from the Ombudsman has been talking to the people. I hope whatever is happening in the Ombudsman’s department commences soon because the Wet Season is coming and people need help. Let us see what comes from that.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I had intended to touch on an issue last night in my adjournment debate relating to the aeromedical service in Katherine. I am somewhat surprised the Minister for Health could not be bothered, is too lazy, or could not give two hoots for anyone south of his electorate in comfortable Darwin; I do not know why he did not bother to talk about this but I will.
It is with much joy and pleasure that I announce CareFlight has commenced night time fixed-wing evacuations from Tindal. Finally, we are back to where we were three years ago, although probably not quite with the level of service we were getting, but we are heading in the right direction. It appears wallabies are no longer a significant issue, just as I flagged during estimates questions this year.
The airfield region is - and I quote from a letter from Mr Jeff Konemann, the chief pilot for CareFlight dated 30 July 2011 in which he said:
Thank you very much. Finally, the wallaby furphy is at a close, and the minister can no longer rely on this irrelevant and spurious argument for not having a full-time fixed-wing Priority 1 capable aircraft in Katherine, just as we had a number of years ago. Now the wallaby furphy has been dispelled, what is the Health minister going to rely on to excuse himself from the responsibility of putting full and proper aeromedical capacity in Katherine? He is going to blame a lack of trained staff.
During the Estimates Committee hearing this year, the minister and other witnesses before the committee cited the preference for a ‘consolidated’ service. One of the central issues was the difficulty in attracting and maintaining staff, and their training, in places like Katherine. During those estimates questions, I asked the minister whether there had ever been any flight-trained doctors in Katherine. His response then was - and I quote from the Hansard:
I pushed the minister further and he became a little uncertain. I guess that is because he does not get out of Darwin as much as he should. He does not get to Katherine Hospital, and has not over the last number of years, to discover there are and have been flight-trained doctors. There have been flight-trained nurses, but there have also been flight-trained doctors based in Katherine. When he became uncertain about the answer he said he would - I cannot find the quote now; however, we asked a question on notice about flight-trained doctors. I received the answer to the question of notice recently saying: ‘Yes, there has’. First he said: ‘No, there were no doctors, only flight-trained nurses’. The answer after he checked was: ‘Yes, there has’. The answer continues:
I want you to remember that date: not enough doctors to run an aeromedical roster out of Katherine since 2002-03. I knew the answers to some of these questions before I asked them. I knew people like Jim Scattini, PJ Spafford and Tony Watson were all flight-trained doctors who lived in Katherine during that time. If there were not enough doctors to maintain an aeromedical roster in Katherine in 2002-03, why did your government base a full-time aeromedical plane in Katherine at the beginning of the Pearl Aviation contract which commenced in - drum roll, wait for it - 2004. In 2003, there were not enough doctors to staff a full aeromedical roster, yet, the government, in 2004 - one year later - put in a full-time aeromedical evacuation fixed-wing aircraft out of Tindal Air Base.
How is that possible? How do you put a full-time aeromedical service in Katherine when, according to the minister’s answer to a question on notice:
It is clearly evidence this government is more and more irrelevant by the day. It is tired, it is lazy and lacking any real direction. For goodness sake, the minister cannot even get questions right and some consistency around a simple issue of an aeromedical service in Katherine.
Now we are relegated to having a second class service because, under the new 10-year contract, we will have an aeroplane in Katherine for low priority taxi rides - repatriations from Katherine to outlying communities and from outlying communities into Katherine for regular medical treatment. No Priority 1 aircraft will be based in Katherine because the minister does not really care, and this government does not really care, about regional parts of the Northern Territory. We cover an area from Borroloola to the west Australian border, from as far as Daly Waters, even Elliott, to the south yet we are relegated to a second class service in Katherine.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is further evidence of how irrelevant this government is becoming, particularly outside these cushy Darwin electorates which it seems to think it holds quite comfortably. Perhaps the Minister for Health, the member for Casuarina, is not running at the next election. If so, the Chief Minister needs to tell us because perhaps he has lost interest.
It is a good win for Katherine to have at least night time evacuation capacity out of Tindal because the wallabies have virtually gone. I give credit to the Department of Defence in Katherine, based at Tindal, which has undertaken an exhaustive program to control wallaby numbers inside the new fence. My view still remains Katherine has missed out. We have been relegated to a second class service as a result of the lack of direction of this government, particularly when it comes to the broader electorate of the Northern Territory.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I defend Palmerston residents. We have heard several members tonight in adjournment talking about rubbish – dumps, that is - and waste transfer. Who in their right mind thinks rubbish is so important we should talk about it tonight? However, it has been raised so I must defend my fellow colleagues, the Palmerston residents. Because security guards are not at the Howard Springs transfer station people are not suddenly taking their rubbish there.
There has been a failure to properly plan our waste facilities to be one managed facility. Do you believe people in Farrar, the future suburb of Johnston, or Zuccoli, whenever it may come online, look to the top of the hill at Howard Springs refuse facility and think: ‘Hang on, I have to travel 5 km in the other direction’. Of course you would go to the closest facility. Much work needs to be done.
When I was in Alice Springs last week doing portfolio work, I spoke to the Alice Springs Mayor and his technical services staff. Waste refuse dumps were discussed and the fact the entire region - there is no plan for the region on how to manage refuse facilities. It is not a rural one and an urban one; we need a joint approach to all of them. It is hard to believe you would make people drive 5 km or 6 km to a refuse facility when 1 km to the east there is a refuse facility. It is bizarre that we split them.
I take the opportunity to talk about the electoral redistribution which will come into play at the next election. We have already been visiting Gray Primary School, which is almost on the border of my current electorate. Quite a few people within the electorate of Drysdale have students attending Gray Primary School. It has been exciting to see some of the kids and the aspirations of one of the older schools in the area. I look forward to working with the Gray Primary School, and this government, or a new government, to ensure we have good, well-maintained facilities and a fantastic learning environment for our kids in that area.
Gray is set to come under the electorate of Drysdale, and I am looking forward to working in that area. There have been many discussions about things occurring in that area. Knowing people from Gray over the years of policing in Palmerston, I am confident they are all great people to work with and are keen to see a friendly face come doorknocking.
Part of that will be the Good Shepherd Lutheran College. I had reason to attend a cancer foundation morning tea some time ago. We had a fantastic morning tea in a building which was part of the BER program, well-used, well-deserved and well thought out for the school’s purpose.
I look forward to working further with Sacred Heart Primary School. Unfortunately, the redistribution means Palmerston Christian School will drop off, so instead of having four primary schools in my electorate I will have five. I lose one but gain two and, as many people in Palmerston know, I love the schools because they are definitely a learning environment. It is fantastic to get involved with kids, encourage them and get them excited about their learning experience. I cannot say for my entire schooling years I was excited about school; however, I am a big advocate for it nowadays and honoured to be able to help the schools keep the kids excited and pass on healthy, safe messages.
As the member for Nelson mentioned, one of the schools he visited with a fantastic garden - I have mentioned many times in this House the Driver Primary School garden, the best in the Northern Territory. I encourage other schools to step up to the mark and look at the benefits of that learning environment. They are very rewarding. Come along, have a look, go to the Howard Springs one. There are several in town as well. Get into the ones in Darwin city and have a look.
On Thursday, 28 July, I visited Sacred Heart Primary School for another opening under the BER. I was struck by the bizarre comments from federal senator, Trish Crossin, as I walked in. She said: ‘Oh, if you were in government we would not have this facility’. That was disappointing in front of other people because I am not one to spit back. It is inappropriate for members of parliament. It is fine to fight on the floor, but not so good in a public forum. Our biggest concern with the BER was the way money was spent. If anyone took the time to see what happened around Australia, they would be pleased to note in the Northern Territory, due to great diligence from school councils and school executives, projects were far better managed than in any other state. We have a tough bunch of people in the Territory and they know how to hold their own. They ensured what they got was good, whereas, in Victoria and South Australia, they got hit pretty hard with some bizarre outcomes.
In Question Time, under the Construction and Infrastructure portfolio, under asset management, I asked the minister what costs were going to flow from these extra facilities - what budgetary costs were allocated for these new facilities. The minister ummed and ahhed and fought with great vigour. Minister, this is not the last time you are going to hear this - start preparing now. The minister fought and made excuses. He asked me if I really wanted to know the extra maintenance and running costs of the BER project facilities. In the end, I felt I was almost pressured into succumbing saying: ‘That is all right, we will move on’. I made a mistake because I now get the same blank shrug of the shoulders when I ask the schools.
There is an immediate cost. That cost has to come from the existing budget until schools amend their budgets for next year. It has hurt them financially. It is a great benefit to have assets, but they cost money to run. Minister, when I ask you in the future, give me an answer; tell us how much this has added to the financial cost of our schools. Do not duck and weave; get the answer. It was a cheeky stunt and you managed to pull it off; however, we will need to know those costs and I expect them to start coming forward.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Wagaman Primary School students accompanied by Ms Marilyn van den Elzen and Ms Gaylene Russ. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
JUSTICE (CORRECTIONS) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 167)
(Serial 167)
Continued from 5 May 2011.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, in the short time I have had to get my head around this legislation I have found it to be an interesting contribution to the laws of the Northern Territory. In some ways, reading through this presented me with a conundrum in that it is a good thing to keep people out of gaol as much as you possibly can. Unfortunately, this legislation takes a top-down approach instead of a bottom-up approach. This is, effectively, providing a soft option for bailees and parolees and people who are sentenced prisoners, and is not the answer to the law and order problems currently faced in the Northern Territory. It is a top-down approach because this government has lost control of crime and incarceration rates. It seeks to reduce the number of people in prison by providing those soft options rather than deal with the root causes of crime and offending in the Northern Territory. That is the conundrum presented to me because clearly we have too many people in our prison system.
We have known for a long time Indigenous people are way over represented in the Corrections and Justice systems in the Northern Territory. One must look at the reasons why offenders are imprisoned; how they come to be there. Once you have analysed that, and it is not too hard to do, you must then find a way to deal with the bottom-up approach to offending in the Northern Territory. I will have more to say on the details of that shortly.
However, to look at one aspect, everyone in this House is aware - government members opposite speak about it regularly, too – that alcohol contributes to our crime rate in the Northern Territory in a very significant way. I heard the Chief Minister say 60% of violent crime can be attributed to alcohol. Unless you are prepared to take a tough approach to alcohol you will clearly be putting yourself right behind the eight ball when it comes to dealing with the flow-on effects from alcohol abuse - crime. The government touts its current tough-on-grog laws as being the toughest in the country. Yes. Will they be effective? No. As I mentioned last night in my adjournment debate, we have seen the alcohol laws introduced by this government and rolled out in some communities in the Northern Territory clearly not work. What makes the government think the same type of regime will work in Darwin and other parts of the Territory is beyond me ...
Mr Bohlin: The indication is it is insanity.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right; it is an indication of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
In the absence of any new ideas on how to deal with crime rates in the Northern Territory, alcohol-related crime, recidivism, what the government does is take a typically Labor soft-on-crime approach. This is a soft measure, unlike the Country Liberals’ approach to this, which would deal with the root causes of crime in …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: … the Northern Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex! Minister for Business!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The measures in this legislation have the very high potential to remove a significant part of the deterrent factor in the minds of people who commit crimes. They will be thinking: ‘Instead of going to gaol I have a better chance of being at home. If I am on bail, that will mean I will not have to be in custody, I will not be on remand; I will be able to go home, albeit with conditions’. Those conditions exist now; you can get bail.
In the case of bail particularly, the practical application of the decision by magistrates and judges whether to grant bail goes to their assessment of a number of factors. One of those factors would be whether they believe a person they give bail to would comply with conditions placed upon them. Those considerations by judges and magistrates are a balancing act weighed against other factors in determining bail such as the protection of the community which this legislation does not seem to consider at all. One of the most important factors in dealing with crime and how offenders are dealt with - whether they be at the bail stage, the sentencing stage or the parole stage - is the protection of the community. The magistrates and judges will make an assessment on that. The potential is, because they now have another option to allow people to go free, more people will walk free on bail when, in other circumstances, the weight of protection of the community would mean they would ordinarily stay in custody. That concerns me ...
Mr Giles: Soft on crime!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Absolutely. The government is soft on crime. The minister will argue we already have all these things in place and this adds to …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting! Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The minister will argue we already have a regime in place for bail, parole and sentencing, and these will only augment or add to the range of options judges and magistrates have. The nett effect of that will mean more people will be out of gaol on bail. They will be out of gaol on softer sentences. They will be out of gaol because parole boards will look at this legislation and figure they have better options of ensuring people comply with conditions. We know the nett effect will be more people out of gaol because this is the only answer the government has to dealing with the rates of incarceration in the Northern Territory. If there was a raft of measures being introduced alongside this which meant there would be a real impact on the root causes of offending in the Northern Territory my arguments would be spurious; however, there are none. The government has no answer other than to go soft on crime.
This legislation was introduced earlier this year. It has a staggered commencement date with the provision to introduce community based orders and community custody orders commencing on a fixed date after the Administrator sets that date, and the remainder to commence on assent.
The purpose of this bill is to reduce the number of prisoners on remand and the number of inmates in Territory gaols. I will say it again: this government has not been able to figure out how to deal with incarceration rates and the rising crime rate in the Northern Territory. It has lost the battle and has come to a point where it asks: ‘How do we keep people out of gaol?’ Let us go soft on them’. I am quite astounded. The more I read this legislation I thought about the difficulties it will present to the good folk of the Northern Territory because those people who would ordinarily be in gaol no longer will be.
This bill amends a number of acts, those being the Bail Act and regulations, the Parole of Prisoners Act, the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, the Sentencing Act, the Motor Vehicles Act which is another point of great concern, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the Youth Justice Act and the Supreme Court Rules.
In going through some parts of the legislation, section 27A is about conduct agreements. Currently, the section covers conduct that may be prohibited or required by an accused person if the conduct agreement is entered into. This is under the Bail Act. Under the amendments to this section, the court may grant bail, require the accused person, other than a person before the Youth Justice Court, to wear a monitoring device and have other equipment installed in their home to assist with the operation of the monitoring device. It also allows the court to require the accused person to give a sample of their voice for use with voice recognition devices and have other equipment installed in their home to assist with that equipment. This, potentially, has the effect, as I pointed out, of allowing the court to grant bail to offenders where that bail would otherwise be denied. I raise concerns about how this will be balanced against the principle of protecting the community from offenders who would ordinarily be kept in custody on bail.
There is a new section 27B: Monitoring compliance with certain conduct agreements. This allows a person on bail to be monitored by electronic means, and it allows the court to impose necessary conditions that allow the accused person to enter into a conduct agreement and use monitoring devices or a voice recognition system if the court is satisfied, on a recommendation from the Director of Correctional Services, the accused person is suitable. I want to point to the words ‘on the recommendation of the Director of Correctional Services’. This will necessarily mean more work for Corrections staff. They will have to assess more people for these orders if the magistrates and judges, and I am sure they will, choose to grant bail and give these orders under this section. Currently, a bail assessment takes somewhere between three to five days depending on the location in which it is being done. I am unsure what the staffing is in Katherine, Tennant Creek, or Alice Springs, but staff at those locations within Corrections are already stretched and this will simply add to their workload. I have concerns about that in light of the fact this government continues, unabated, in its work to reduce the number of public servants working in a range of departments in regional parts of the Northern Territory.
I see, and I am going to pick up on, the raised eyebrow from the Attorney-General. Attorney-General, let me ask you when and if you are going to replace the two WorkSafe officers who retired from Katherine? The office has been closed for the last four months?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The positions were advertised.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: There is no point of order, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms Lawrie: You asked the question and you got the answer.
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: There are minor amendments to the Bail Act, but moving on to the Parole of Prisoners Act. There are no provisions under the current act for monitoring compliance for those parole orders and the new section 4 of the Parole of Prisoners Act will extend the provisions of Part 27, Division 1 of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act to the person on parole and subject them to monitoring conditions, such as the monitoring device or voice recognition system. Currently, the section allows for the parole board to release a prisoner on parole if they have served the minimum term of imprisonment as provided by this or the Sentencing Act, and conditions relating to the parole order are also determined by this section.
Under the amendment the person, unless they are found guilty by a youth justice court, may be released on parole subject to the condition that they reside at a specific place and be subject to monitoring conditions, such as a monitoring device or voice recognition system. I point to the effect this may have on parole boards deciding whether a person could or should be released on parole. It is my view, and the view of a number of people I have spoken to, that this will put more prisoners back on the street on parole. I have no doubt it will affect decisions of the parole board as it goes through its determinations.
There are minor amendments to the Parole of Prisoners Act and the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. There is a new section 94B which deals with the appointment of surveillance officers; a new section 49BA, Approval of monitoring device and voice recognition system; and a new section 94C, Monitoring compliance with the monitoring order. Currently under the act, 94B dealing with surveillance officers, covers the appointment and powers available to a surveillance officer. The appointed person may or may not be a parole officer. Section 94C deals with breath and blood analyses and tests and allows a surveillance officer the ability to direct a person on a parole or home detention order to undergo a breath analysis for alcohol content.
The amendment repeals sections 94B and 94C and replaces them with a single provision. The new 94B gives the director the power to appoint a surveillance officer. This person need not be a probation officer and can be in a paid or unpaid capacity. I do not know if we will end up in committee over this; however, I would like to know how an unpaid surveillance officer works? What is the mechanism around having an unpaid surveillance officer? Are they neighbourhood watch, are they volunteers, are they off duty police officers, are they teachers in remote communities, or people who are seconded to do a job free of charge? Will they be covered by insurance, workers compensation and those types of things? Do they have any powers? If so, what are they? There are quite a few questions about unpaid staff and I am interested to see how they plan to pull that together.
There are other amendments to the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act and also some amendments to the Sentencing Act. Currently, section 5(2)(k) states in sentencing that the court must have regard to any time spent in custody prior to sentencing. Under the amendment, the current provisions of section 5(2)(k) have been expanded to clarify time in custody can include time spent on bail subject to a conduct agreement and include the use of a monitoring device. The practical application of that is if you are going to be sentenced for an offence the judge can take into consideration the amount of time you have already spent in custody. This section expands, reinforces and brings about some clarity in the use of the conduct agreement and monitoring devices.
Section 7, Sentencing and other orders, currently outlines the sentencing orders available to the court on the conviction of the offender. The amendment expands the current section to include the ability for a court to make a sentencing order that includes a community based order either with or without conviction, or a community custody order with a conviction. Effectively, that means this amendment offers the community custody order as an alternative to a term of imprisonment.
In isolation, finding innovative ways to keep prisoners out of gaol is not necessarily a bad thing; however, it must be weighed against the good of the community, the protection of the community, and must be weighed against all the other considerations around sentencing. For legislation like this to come before the House as the means by which this government intends to deal with incarceration rates, to me, just beggars belief.
Mr Conlan: It is out of answers.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It has no other solutions; it has lost control of crime in the NT. One only has to look down the track to see how crime and crime rates are affecting our small towns. Look at Alice Springs, for example …
Mr Conlan: Where is that?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is north and South Australia. They consider themselves to be part of South Australia under this government.
Let us look at Alice Springs and the unbelievable problem with crime. If anywhere exemplifies the loss of control this government has over crime and law and order, Alice Springs is the case. It was not so long ago I spoke to a fellow who was visiting there - a cattleman who was in Alice Springs who was walking along the road near the Melanka site …
Mr Giles: Gap Road.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Gap Road, thank you. … minding his own business when he was bumped into from behind by two Aboriginal fellows. He turned around and they said: ‘Have you got a smoke, mate?’ He looked at the other six people standing behind them all aggressive and ready to have a go at him. He was a pretty quick thinker and talked himself out of it. However, I tell you, a cattleman of that man’s stature - he is a big fellow - was worried about his personal safety. How many incidents like that have been happening in Alice Springs because this government has lost control of crime in Alice Springs?
In Katherine, over the last two years, assaults have risen 40%. This government’s answer to the rising crime rate in the Northern Territory is to have softer bail, softer sentencing, softer parole, and: ‘Let us get these buggers back out on the street’.
How are the people of Alice Springs going to feel when they have people released, under the auspices of this legislation, onto the streets to continue reoffending? How are they going to feel? That is replicated right across the Northern Territory.
There is much to this legislation; it talks about community orders, custody orders, work orders, all types of things, and goes into the Motor Vehicles Act. This is a topic the member for Port Darwin is particularly interested in and I am not going to steal his thunder. He is quite keen to speak about it.
This legislation is a lame response to incarceration rates in the Northern Territory. This government must deal with the root causes of crime. You cannot go soft. You cannot keep softening the system to suit your own political statistical agenda. I daresay the government has drummed this one up because it was not that long ago the Country Liberals pointed out when it builds the new prison at Weddell, it would be full, given the current incarceration rates, by 2013 or 2014. The government is going to spend around $300m on a new prison only to have it full the moment the ribbon is cut. That is pretty good. That is $300m of taxpayers’ money …
A member: Good if it is a hotel.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right. It is good to have 100% occupancy for a hotel but not good to have 100% occupancy in a prison, especially on the day the ribbon is cut!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: What the minister dresses up as the new era in Corrections is really a softening to suit the government’s own political and statistical agenda because it has no other solutions. I said this last night. It is a government bereft of new ideas and you can plainly see that. There is nothing new from the government. ‘Oh, look, we have tried this; we will draw up some statistics to say it looks like it worked okay and then we will introduce it across the Territory’. I do not know what is going on over there. Tired? Maybe they have their mind on other things, like the child protection failures. Retirement? Who is going to stay and who will go?
In isolation, softening the regime around bail, sentencing and parole is not going to be the answer to the burning question in the minds of Territorians which is: how are you going to reduce crime? That is the burning question. How is this government going to reduce crime? It is not going to reduce crime by allowing more prisoners back onto the street. In some respects, the government has to go down this path. Weddell will be full. Currently, prisoners who are sentenced, I am led to believe, are being released early to make room for new prisoners under this government’s failed law and order policies. What about the phone calls I suspect are made from courts each day to the prison to see how many beds are free: ‘Oh, only two today’. That is the reason the government has to introduce this legislation, to deal not with crime rates but the perception that this government will have fewer people in gaol. It will find a statistical measure that makes this look like it is the be-all and end-all. ‘Look at us; we have reduced incarceration rates in the Northern Territory’. Perhaps the government might find statistics to say it has reduced recidivism rates. Both those things are linked.
Madam Speaker, as this legislation is being introduced to reduce numbers – it is not about reducing crime in the Northern Territory - Territorians should be expecting far more and should be receiving far more by way of solutions from this government.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support this legislation and thank the minister for having a vision for low-security prisoners rather than putting up the brick wall and locking people away. We know the justice system is a revolving door; we continually lock people up. This legislation is not going to put rapists and murderers into the public. It is looking at small crimes, such as offences for drink-driving, alcohol-related issues, and it is about giving these people opportunities to put something back into their communities so their community can see what they have done; they are rewarding the community. It is a fantastic vision; a vision which allows a process where people can come back into the community and see, with the wrongs they have done, how they can pay back the community and reward the community for the things they have done.
Member for Port Darwin, it is not just about building walls. If you want to imprison everyone, we will need more than a new Weddell. We can take up the whole of the Northern Territory and keep on building prisons. It is about paying back the community for the small crime committed so people can see the rewards and benefits. At the moment, through the justice system we have prisoners cleaning the communities - we see it all the time in Alice Springs. We see prisoners walking down the creeks, picking up the rubbish, mowing and using the whipper snipper where people live up in the hills. Where I live in Lyndavale, they are always using the whipper snipper to make it safe for people who live in that area so there are no snakes and no rubbish accumulating. You can see in Alice Springs, in the Todd River, what the low ranking prisoners do to our town.
This legislation is saying we cannot continually put these people in prison. You can keep building walls and you can keep putting these people behind those walls; however, is that going to teach them anything? No! All it teaches them is to reoffend. How many times have we seen the same people come back through the revolving door of justice after committing the same crime? This allows those people to pay back to the community for the injustice they have done.
I cannot see anywhere in the minister’s second reading speech or the explanatory statement any mention of allowing rapists and murderers to go back into society. What we have to do is not frighten people. People will ask, if the CLP gains power at the next election, will it be building bigger and bigger gaols to house everyone in the Northern Territory, and the population of 99.9% of Indigenous presently incarcerated might go up to 150%. Do we really want to see that?
It is okay to put rapists and murderers in prison; they deserve to be there. The government is not saying these people should be released into the public. These are people on motor vehicle charges, drink-driving, and reoffending in the same area all the time.
I have had firsthand experience with this; my nieces and nephews continually do this. I had my sister front up to court several months ago and the magistrate put her on an order where she had to give back to the community. She had a choice of going to gaol or to look after the cats and dogs at the RSPCA. She chose to look after the dogs and cats at the RSPCA because she was embarrassed. When I spoke to my other sister from Hermannsburg, it was really funny because she said every time she calls her sister all you can hear is ‘woof, woof’ and ‘meow, meow’. She is doing 70 hours for the public and paying back for her wrong in a place where she also learns, because she would not have known anything about caring for cats and dogs – feeding them, walking them, cleaning them. That is an education strategy in itself and where we have to move to. We cannot continually be locking people up. That is my contribution to this legislation, minister.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell for preempting what I was going to say; however, I want to reassure her I do not for one second suggest this is going to lead to the release of murderers and rapists. Why? Because the minister specifically excludes that group of people from this process. However, let us look at what this legislation is attempting to do in the general, before we reduce to the specific. When I say the general, let us talk about what government has been doing over the past 10 years since coming to power. It has a mandate to govern in accordance with the philosophy it maintains. Good, that is what it has been doing.
An example of the legislation the government introduced very early in the period of governance consistent with that philosophical approach is the alcohol courts. The alcohol courts are the expression of the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence. The idea is when a person comes before a court and has an alcohol problem, the alcohol court legislation said in circumstances where you would normally go to gaol we are going to give you one last reprieve because you have to deal with your alcohol problem. We think your alcohol problem is the cause of your conduct and if we get that under control you probably will not be a criminal. That was the first dalliance with therapeutic jurisprudence and is consistent with the Labor Party world view on things. The problem was the alcohol court was ineffective, which is why the government ended up repealing the legislation.
The courts, however, taking the lead from the government, created a system of their own called credit courts. No legislative instrument from this House ever created the credit courts; those credit courts were able to operate and remain under existing legislation, particularly the use of the Sentencing Act, and I will come back to that shortly. The government, in repealing the alcohol courts, realised it had pulled up short and has now looked at the model of the credit courts and introduced the SMART Court Act which runs along the same philosophical principles. If we deal with the person’s alcohol or drug problems we will congratulate them. The way that is expressed in the courtroom has caused magistrates, particularly more conservative ones, some cause for concern.
This manifests itself in a courtroom by almost fawning congratulations on a person when they do nothing more than take on personal responsibilities and try to deal with their alcohol and drug problem. It is almost like a tickertape parade and the courtroom has to be thrust forward congratulating the person for becoming responsible.
Is that what our court system has come to? Is that what we need? The therapeutic jurisprudence background is strong in our current Chief Stipendiary Magistrate; is it is where she cut her teeth. The Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, being a great believer in these ideas, has come to a jurisdiction where these ideas are embraced. The interesting component is the credit courts, when they operated, very much like the SMART courts do now, did so without a legislative construct surrounding them - that is not entirely true - did so without a specific legislative instrument creating them. There was sufficient latitude in the capacity of the courts granted by this parliament in existing legislation, for example the Sentencing Act. This issue arose when I was having a briefing on this legislative instrument.
There are three components I am concerned about when it comes to this legislative instrument and I will deal with each of them. The first is the community custody orders and the second is the community based orders. I do not want to go into the minutia of section numbers, etcetera. Let us just talk about the general concept of how a community custody order is supposed to work.
A community custody order is, essentially, a prisoner in their own home. This means, through the joy of modern technology, you can put bracelets on people and a person is sentenced to prison but can serve that under this proposed legislation within their own home. We used to have home detention orders with that type of thing. A bracelet goes on the ankle and if they leave the confines of the home the bracelet sends off a signal, and everyone knows they have been particularly naughty and breached the terms of their custody. We are saying: ‘You are not coming into the prison system per se, but you are still a prisoner in your own home’. Aung San Suu Kyi would be familiar with that concept.
That takes us to community based orders. Community based orders are slightly different. They are, in a sense, a form of non-imprisonment. These are orders where people are released from the courts upon conviction for the more minor forms of offences - but they still can be quite serious - and these people do things which are required of them by the courts in the community - whatever those things may be. During the briefing on this issue I asked: ‘If the court, under the current sentencing legislation of the Northern Territory’ - and dare I say other jurisdictions – ‘has a latitude which ranges from not even recording a conviction against a guilty person to putting a person in gaol, it is within the ambit of the Sentencing Act right now to place orders in place which capture everything from essential release without penalty all the way to incarceration’? The answer I received during the briefing was: ‘Yes, that is correct’. My next question was: ‘What is different about this?’ What I got was a stony silence which lasted about 10 seconds.
Essentially, there is nothing new in this legislative instrument. Yes, it might tweak a few things about putting bracelets on villains and whatever else; however, the government is redressing powers it already has. Where those powers should have been used in the past, if this government was going to pursue its policy line - and I pick up on the member for Macdonnell saying: ‘Do not put these people in prison’. That is fine. It is a matter of policy that you seek sentences under the existing legislation which do not put these people in prison. However, do not come into this House with a charade piece of legislation saying you have a new system when, in fact, you are introducing nothing more than what exists in current legislation, possibly with minor tweaks around the edges. That is all.
This government is so hell-bent on presenting itself as having new ideas and new policies it forgot the legislation it introduces often repeats and reconstructs existing legislation from this House. The alcohol court, credit court, SMART Court processes could not be a clearer demonstration of this truism. The Credit Court which, effectively - with a few minor differences - was reproduced in the SMART Court, did not have a legislative base specifically in a credit court act. This legislation is window dressing government policy failures up until this date.
The member for Macdonnell said it would be good to see these prisoners back in the community. She went on to describe how many of these prisoners are in the community - because they already can; it is how the system already works. We are dressing this up as the new era in Corrections when, in fact, it is the old era in Corrections with a new set of drapes, maybe a little window dressing, and a couple of flowers. The powers mentioned in this legislative instrument, essentially, already exist. Why have they not been used? Because government has not put the policies in place to make these legislative instruments work the way they can. Rather than admit to a policy failure in the past, the government says: ‘We have this round thing with an axle through the middle; it is called a wheel and we are reinventing it especially for the occasion’.
Why does the government remain surprised that people of the Northern Territory are losing faith when it continually does this type of thing? Media release after media release about being tough on crime, a new era in Corrections, it is going to focus on this, etcetera, when the media releases themselves do not reflect what is in the legislation. On the occasions they do they are just bits of paper, and people are becoming sick and tired of having the same thing dressed up again and again and presented as something new. A burnt sausage is a burnt sausage is a burnt sausage.
I will not be supporting this legislation. It does not add anything of any consequence to the legislative structures which currently exist in the Northern Territory, and it should be incumbent on this government to use the existing structures. If it has not used the existing structures until now, why should I have any faith, why should this House have any faith, that it is going to do any better with new structures.
An example, I asked a question on the prison system during estimates: ‘You are talking about doing all these courses?’ ‘Yes, we have 600 prisoners starting courses’. I said: ‘That is great news. How many finished?’ The answer was: ‘Three’.
It is not about legislative instruments and a new era in Corrections. It is about the capacity of government to deliver. That is on trial in this House on almost every occasion government introduces a bill like this.
What is new in this bill concerns me. It relates to matters of drink-driving, and traffic offenders are essentially what this bill is targeted at. Whilst I appreciate the bill will not release sexual offenders, murderers or paedophiles, if we talk about murder, substantially more people are killed on our streets in this jurisdiction than are murdered. We are still talking about things which are fundamentally serious. Many motor vehicle accidents which lead to death are the product of people driving drunk. When I was the member for Macdonnell shortly before the 2005 election - it would have been about 2003 - I went to a triple fatal about 50 km from the Kintore community which included the death of a baby. If memory serves me, the driver was intoxicated and there were other people in the car also intoxicated who distracted the driver. Whilst these are not the most serious offences for which you can be charged, the consequences which flow from committing these offences are, nevertheless, serious. On occasion, they are literally matters of life or death.
The parliament of this jurisdiction has determined a person has demonstrated a lack of responsibility because they jump into a car whilst drunk - this parliament has long held, government after government, term after term, that people who abuse the privilege of a driver’s licence will have that licence disqualified and taken away from them. This legislative instrument seeks to overturn that long-standing principle. This legislation says if you a traffic offender or an exceed 0.08%, etcetera, and you find yourself subject to a community custody order or a community based order or a term of imprisonment, we are going to put you through a course to teach you how to drive. Hopefully, part of the message in that course is you should not drive while you are drunk - I am sure that would be the case. As a reward for doing the course, this legislation will say you can have your driver’s licence back, notwithstanding there is a period of disqualification still current on your driver’s licence. That is a cause for concern. It is a watering down of the idea that if you prove yourself unfit to hold a driver’s licence because you engage in irresponsible conduct - drive whilst you are drunk - you should not have that driver’s licence. It also removes the concept which all too often does not find its way into the lexicon of members opposite, the concept of punishment.
It is clear from every driving test I have ever seen that drink-driving is attended to by those people who issue the licence. You have to be able to demonstrate, on any licence test I have ever seen, that you know you are not allowed to drive whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This government is proposing to say: ‘It is too hard to police this. The people who find themselves in gaol for committing these offences go back to their communities and will almost invariably drive again. What do we do?’ This is the argument run in the second reading speech: ‘We will give their driver’s licence back despite the fact there is an existing period of disqualification’. That is surrender. That is capitulation. It is: ‘I give up; it is too hard’.
On those grounds alone, whilst I am tepid on the issue of CCOs and CBOs, I am not tepid on this. If a person has their licence taken off them for committing driving offences because they are a danger to the community in which they live, that person should serve the full period of disqualification as outlined in the traffic and motor vehicle legislation of this House. We should not send a signal that if you are worse than the others and end up in gaol for these offences, not only are we going to give you an option of a CCO or a CBO, we are going to enable you to get your licence back early. This is reward for conduct not acceptable to this side of the House.
Moreover, it reflects the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence being pushed to a new level. It means not only are we going to have a tickertape parade in the courtroom every time you say: ‘My name is Adam and I have not had a drink this week’, we are going to actively reward you and exempt you from punishment for conduct you have engaged in at the peril of the rest of the community. That is not acceptable and, for those reasons, this legislative instrument cannot be supported by the right-minded people of this House. Madam Speaker, I hope some members opposite consider themselves right-minded.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the new shadow for Corrections who does not even know where the new prison facility is to be constructed. It is not Weddell and has not been Weddell for quite some time. You seem to have completely escaped the entire public debate, including public meetings. For your information, the new site is at Holtze. You might want to have a briefing as incoming shadow Corrections minister in relation to that correctional facility. He showed a patent lack of understanding about the significant changes being introduced in the Corrections system as part of the new era in Corrections. He also seemed to have escaped the significant resources and funding being put in to support …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … to support correctional officers with additional staff we, as a government, have recognised the Corrections system will require for these reforms to be effective. They go in tranches of positions across the regions, including important trials into the remote communities.
I take my hat off to the minister for Corrections who, when given the portfolio, embarked on a tour of visiting correctional systems across our nation, understanding the complexities of the incarceration system, both inside and outside the wall. What training and rehabilitative measures do you put in place to break this unacceptable cycle of recidivism we have in the Territory? Why is it unacceptable? Because we do not want taxpayers’ dollars being expended on incarcerating people and when they do their time and leave - no we are not letting them out early; it is not possible to let them out early under the sentencing provisions …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: They cannot handle the truth. The member for Katherine would not know the truth if he tripped over it.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: If he fell over it he would not know the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: He has a significant amount of form.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: A man who leads with his chin. He dodged paying stamp duty. He did some dodgy car deals in Katherine. He is the subject of debate in the public arena in what the Ombudsman’s report found in regard to his behaviour …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I understand why he was sacked as shadow Treasurer. I cannot understand why he was given the shadow Corrections portfolio when he has such a murky past. He has been caught out doing some dodgy car deals and falsifying records, and giving him anything in the Justice portfolio is unbelievable. I guess Terry does not have much choice in things because he has a numbers problem. Here is a tip, member for Katherine, try not to lead with your chin in every debate. That is what you usually do. Do some background, do some research, find out that the new correctional facility is at Holtze not Weddell . Find out within this legislation …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … and I took some notes. The member for Katherine said it the same as existing conditions. Go to the community service orders and the whole model of outside the wall corrections that came about as a result of the great research done by minister McCarthy and the Independent member for Nelson. He has pursued reform of Corrections from the day he came into this Chamber, and we have participated in those debates over the years. We have a dynamic balance between justice - people being brought to account for their deeds - and the balance we all seek, genuine education and rehabilitation so when people have served their sentence they do not reoffend. That is a significant body of work we have brought through public consultation processes and significant announcements in the new era in Corrections.
The feedback from the legal fraternity has been overwhelmingly positive. For people who understand the system of justice in the Territory, they are saying finally a government of the Territory is bold and strong enough to make the significant reforms contained within this legislation today, as well as the resource commitments that will genuinely bring forward a new era in Corrections. I point that out to the opposition because they seem to have completely missed the debate in the new era in Corrections.
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: You have to focus on reducing recidivism. I acknowledge the member for Macdonnell went to what she sees are the genuine issues in her community. If you want to break that cycle of crime you have to focus on recidivism. It is way too high in the Territory. Forty eight percent of our offenders are back in gaol within two years compared to the national data, which is sitting at 37%.
Although the shadow spokesperson for Alcohol Policy in the CLP says there is a negligible link between crime and alcohol, this government knows the data is stark - alcohol significantly fuels crime; 60% of all assaults and 67% of all domestic violence incidents in the Territory are co-related. Surveys show 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol.
Alcohol-related harm costs our community $642m per annum in the economic and social impacts of grog, and contributes to death and hospitalisations. Territorians die at three times the national rate attributed to alcohol-related death. That is both road carnage as well as traumas as a result of those unacceptable assault incidents.
That is why the alcohol reforms passed through parliament in a raft of legislation - three bills - and enacted, are complementary to the work being done in the new era in Corrections. The minister can talk more about that. When you look at the emphasis on rehabilitation, and alcohol rehabilitation within the new era of Corrections, additional beds are funded within the rehab treatment system to deal with offenders through the new era in Corrections. The two reforms are complementary and, in combination, may significantly start to turn around the cycle of crime we have seen in the Territory. This government’s view is enough is enough and it is time to make people accountable for their own actions and go directly to the problem drinker rather than society as a whole.
The member for Katherine said there is nothing different in the alcohol reforms, nothing is new, and nothing has changed - that belies belief. It is incredible he has such an attitude. The automatic police bans are no different and nothing has changed? They are significantly different. They are right across the Territory and give police power to ban people from purchasing and consuming alcohol for three months, six months, or 12 months, depending on how many repeat offences they have had. That is brand new; did not exist in Katherine before and did not exist under the alcohol management plan before. It is in place in Katherine today, which is dramatically different to what was in place in Katherine and, indeed, what was in place in Alice Springs previously. I believe the toughest alcohol reforms in the nation are turning those problem drinkers off tap and the mechanisms we have in there are complementary to the new era in Corrections reforms we are debating in the Chamber today.
We make no apologies for wanting to crack down on crime and tackling the unacceptable rate of recidivism. You cannot do that without extra police, and we have put 400 additional police on the ground. We have toughened the laws and, for the first time, offenders convicted of certain violent offences will have to serve a term of imprisonment. That law has resulted in more first-time offenders spending time in gaol. Repeat offenders are also subject to mandatory imprisonment for serious violent offences. Repeat breaches of domestic violence orders result in mandatory imprisonment. The government introduced tough new laws regarding bail for serious violent offenders which resulted in more offenders being held in gaol.
To run the bizarre line the government is soft on crime ignores the legislative reforms brought before the Chamber through successive changes to legislation introduced by Labor Attorneys-General. We have some of the toughest laws in the nation. In the Territory - and it is showing in the significant growth in prison numbers - if you commit a crime you will do the time. That is the reality of consequences in the Territory. We understand there will always be community concerns when it comes to sentencing and ensuring the punishments handed down by the court reflect community sentiment in the law. If you look at Australian Bureau of Statistics’ data on sentencing outcomes in the Territory, we have the toughest sentencing in the nation. If you are convicted of a crime in the Territory you are four times more likely to go to gaol, with NT courts handing down the highest proportion of imprisonment sentences by far in our nation in all level of courts.
Madam Speaker, we might acknowledge Holy Family School, a fantastic school. My kids go there. The two girls have moved up to O’Loughlin, but Zac is still there.
___________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Holy Family Catholic School students accompanied by Mrs Julie Andrews, Mrs Anne Lahy, and Mrs Ros Tellam. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
_____________________
Ms LAWRIE: Welcome, Holy Family, it is great to see you here. I will see you in my office later on.
Back to sentencing in our courts: you are four times more likely in the Territory than anywhere else in the nation to go to gaol, and our courts hand down the highest proportion of imprisonment in the nation. How do you cut that down? This is Australian Bureau of Statistics’ data, not something the Territory government has come up with. This is ABS data: 86% of defendants proven guilty in the NT Supreme Court received actual imprisonment compared to 66% nationally. At the NT Magistrates Court, actual imprisonment sentences are handed down at 24% of defendants proven guilty compared with 5% nationally. The NT Children’s Court hand down actual imprisonment sentences at 17% of defendants proven guilty, compared with 7% nationally. If a defendant is proven guilty with an assault offence, 92% are given actual imprisonment sentences in the Supreme Court, 71% in the Magistrates Court, and 35% in the Children’s Court. If you compare these corresponding figures nationally: that 92% in the Territory is compared to 68% nationally; the 71% in the Magistrates Court is compared to 18% nationally; and 35% in the Children’s Court is compared to 15% nationally. We are locking up Territorians at four times the national rate …
Mr Conlan: And 54% are reoffending.
Ms LAWRIE: What you have to do with those incarceration rates ...
Mr Conlan: They are reoffending.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: ... is clinically go through all the programs ...
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: ... around our nation to see what works to reduce recidivism, and that is what the new era in Corrections has delivered. That is what our minister for Corrections has done. He has done the research with the member for Nelson; they have brought about this dramatic change with two very useful, innovative and proven to have worked in other jurisdictions, sentencing tools which did not exist before. If you listen to the members for Katherine and Port Darwin, they both argue nothing has changed in this legislation. It is window dressing. The curtains may be different, was the bizarre contribution from the member for Port Darwin.
Community based orders and community custody orders are both new sentencing tools introduced in this legislation before the Chamber today. They are the tools in other jurisdictions, particularly Victoria, we have looked at - they are aiming to reduce recidivism by mandating programs which target the offending behaviour and provide restitution to the community. It is a critical reform. They are targeted programs specific to the individual offender which go to the offending behaviour and, importantly, restitution to the community. They do not exist under sentencing options at the moment; they are new tools as a result of legislative reform in the Sentencing Act and I support our minister for Corrections.
The community custody orders will be a new option for non-violent offenders. We have made a very clear line: violent offenders do not have these sentencing options – they are in gaol. For the non-violent offenders, primarily traffic offenders facing imprisonment of less than 12 months, there are now sentencing options and tools in deploying them. Courts will be able to order offenders serve their custodial sentence outside prison under strict supervision by Corrections, and require them to attend rehabilitation and training programs, and participate in employment and community work. New community based orders will be available to courts dealing with low-level offenders not facing an imprisonment period. Both community based orders and community custody orders will allow courts to mandate offenders’ participation in education, training and treatment programs.
An additional 31 Community Corrections officers will be recruited and stationed across the Territory to support this new era in Corrections reform. All these different additional supervision and outside the wall corrections tools will require additional Community Corrections officers; we are funding an additional 31 Community Corrections officers and deploying them across the Territory. They will be stationed in each of the regional centres and also those important growth towns of Wadeye, Yuendumu and Lajamanu, in Nhulunbuy and on Groote Eylandt. New community work crews will be established to deliver work programs in both urban and remote areas in connection with the orders.
New electronic surveillance measures will give correctional staff the ability to monitor the location and behaviour of offenders on community based orders, home detention and parole. We are using new technology – voice recognition technology and electronic bracelets. It is innovative, it is sensible, and it gives Community Corrections officers the opportunity for greater monitoring of these offenders. The Territory government will deliver an extra 45 supported accommodation and rehabilitation beds as a result of this new era in Corrections’ package. It is separate funding - separate beds to the alcohol reform beds and treatment - for the offenders focused on the offenders. We are also targeting driving offenders; they make up about 25% of our prison population and serve, on average, 75 days. What is 75 days going to do to ensure you never have another traffic offence? You have to question that. The member for Port Darwin is arguing to keep it as it is; however, about half are there for drink-driving and the other half for licensing infringements. The court will be given the power to order driving offenders facing gaol of 12 months or less into a new program, which will include alcohol and other drug treatment and therapeutic intervention, drink-driving education, a mechanical workshop, and a driver licensing training system.
We have enhanced the Elders Visiting Program because 80% of our prison population is Aboriginal. It is about getting that strength of culture and critical cultural message around why it is not appropriate to offend. We started the Elders Visiting Program in 2004 to help prisoners maintain links with their community and culture. This has grown to have more than 20 elders offering support in both Alice Springs and Darwin correctional centres. A new post-release support program will be established to provide that all important post-release support and accommodation for prisoners at the end of their sentence. That is new and innovative; it has not happened in the Territory in the past. It is critical when you look at corrections reforms around our nation and the world. These programs are proven to work. If you support it post-release, you are reducing recidivism.
This government is taking action on the alcohol reforms and to reduce recidivism. We are confident our community will benefit, and this will make the Territory a safer place. Aboriginal offenders make up 82% of our prisoners. Aborigines have low numeracy and literacy skills and, sadly, few job prospects. The government will invest in education and training as part of the new era reforms, and with housing and health in the bush. None of this happens if you are not getting education and training through a correctional facility. The new correctional facility at Holtze, not Weddell, delivers the opportunity for improved education and training.
The already-established Barkly Work Camp is focused on education and training. The reforms are about providing contemporary facilities and contemporary practices to break the cycle of crime and recidivism. The new facility at Holtze will be constructed based on the advice of experts who looked at the Berrimah facility and independently advised it could not be rebuilt; it could not be added to, to get the education and training outcomes critical to reducing the cycle of recidivism.
You can have the empty rhetoric of the opposition around mandatory rehabilitation, treatment, and training and education; we are doing it in these reforms. We have embedded it into this legislation and you are not going to support it. The opposition is hypocritical. You walk outside and there is not a single time you do not say …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: … under the CLP there would be mandatory treatment and rehabilitation; it is all about training. We are doing it. We are funding it through the new era in Corrections …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: We are funding it in the alcohol reforms you do not support either. You voted against the alcohol reforms and now you are going to vote against the new era in Corrections. Back up your rhetoric. We are funding and introducing …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: … treatment, training, education and rehabilitation. It is all in here. Back up your rhetoric; support it. You will not support it. You do not get it; you will not support it. I wonder if they have taken the time to read it, given the shadow Corrections spokesperson thought we were building a prison in Weddell when it has been Holtze for a long time. The CLP is saying the Territory does not need a new prison and would scrap the project. The old prison, it says, will provide a focus on rehabilitation, education, and breaking the cycle. Independent experts have advised that is not the case; Berrimah cannot be reconstructed to that extent …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: These reforms are bold and introduce contemporary corrections practices into the Territory for the first time. When I was elected to parliament in 2001, one of my greatest desires was to be a member of a Labor government with the strength …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you will cease interjecting!
Ms LAWRIE: … the vision and the boldness to reform corrections. This era has come. The Labor government has stepped up to the plate, working with the Independent member for Nelson – I acknowledge that – and is making the most dramatic reform to corrections in the history of the Territory with the focus on reducing recidivism, giving genuine rehabilitation treatment, education and training to offenders to break that cycle and provide the post-release support you need to diminish the chances of someone reoffending. It is recognising there is a clear and stark difference between the non-violent offenders and the violent offenders. It is recognising the curse alcohol has on fuelling offending rates in the Territory. I am proud of the work done by the minister for Corrections, working with the Independent member for Nelson, in identifying these reforms.
Madam Speaker, this government stands proud with these correctional reforms. People working in the correctional system support them. The police support them. The judiciary support them. Legal services around the Territory support them. The opposition stands on its own fighting against what are the most contemporary, sensible and evidence-based reforms in our nation. I sincerely congratulate our minister for Corrections.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is one of the most important debates we could have in parliament because we need to come from a philosophy that gaol is not the only form of punishment. If we believe four walls are the only way we punish people then we have a very narrow point of view about what we are trying to achieve.
Long before this Assembly of parliament I have had an interest in outcomes for people in prison in the Northern Territory. I travelled to the United States and looked at two prisons: the West Central Community Correction Facility in Marysville, Ohio and the Ohio Reformatory for Women, a very large prison in the United States. As much as people sometimes talk about United States prisons as breaking rocks, wearing pink outfits and having chains all over the place, the American prison system I saw is far more advanced than that. It looks at alternatives we could look at, which I have mentioned to the minister, being therapeutic communities. I have also visited 11 prisons in Australia. Naturally, I visited our prisons several times. I have visited prison farms and the work camp system in Western Australia. I went to Wyndham some years ago promoting the idea we should have that type of work camp in the Northern Territory, and we now have one in Tennant Creek.
I am not looking at this legislation in isolation because if you do you will find issues about whether it will work or not. I look at it as part of an overall package in Corrections. I say ‘in Corrections’ on purpose because this government has much work to do in ensuring people do not get into the correctional system in the first place. There is more work to be done with youth, and much more work to be done in society in general, whether it is parenting, early intervention or more discipline, especially with our young people.
When I had an interview with six inmates from the West Central Community Correction Facility in Ohio, most said the reason they got into trouble was not only because they got into drugs or alcohol, it was because they had no fences; they had no limitation on what they could do. Our society tends to talk about freedom without the responsibility. We need much more emphasis on putting fences up and saying those fences are legitimate.
We have this concept of as long as it is safe it is okay. We do not say it is not right in the first place, but you can do it as long as it is safe. We do that with a number of issues of concern in our society. Alcohol is a classic example. There is no talk about whether excessive consumption of alcohol is necessarily bad; it is if you are going to get drunk have someone sober drive you home or, if you are not sober, stay overnight. There is no talk about whether excessive use of alcohol is something we should not be doing, yet many of the people in our prison are there for excessive use of alcohol.
While discussing this today, I am not saying to the government it is doing a great job keeping people out of gaol. The issue is what we are doing with people in Corrections, and whether we can do a better job in ensuring they do not return.
I look at the big picture and, under the system we have with two big gaols, we have a very poor record; we have the highest recidivism - the minister said that in his second reading - of any state or territory in Australia. The question you ask in estimates, or budget considerations when talking about outcomes, is when it comes to recidivism our outcomes are extremely poor. If that is the case, we should be looking at alternatives. The opposition may not agree with these alternatives; however, I would rather a government have a go at alternatives - and by all means for the opposition to criticise; that is its job, I am not knocking that – a government that did something rather than nothing. For too long, nothing has happened.
My name has been mentioned in relation to this and I have no problem with that. I am happy and proud I had some involvement in these changes. I was not involved in all of them. I have been trying to look at the bigger picture. It is good we have work camps. We have one in Tennant Creek, one planned for Katherine, and a prison farm. None of what I am saying about Corrections was limited to one item about having community based orders or the like. I was trying to look at the bigger picture of how to get people out of the big prison at Holtze. I would rather not see that big prison full. I have seen the graphs saying if we keep incarcerating people at the rate we are, we will need all that prison. I would rather we did not have those people in prison.
Punishment is still part of Corrections and this debate is about how we can have that punishment without necessarily putting people behind four walls which, over the last umpteen years, has shown not to change people’s behaviour. There are other circumstances where behaviour is not changed, especially when people go back to a place of unemployment, overcrowding, etcetera. We know that. There is no evidence to show the system we have of putting everyone in prison - behind four walls - has necessarily achieved anything. We need to highlight the fact more than ever that 80% of people in our prisons are Aboriginal. I am not saying they should not be punished, but is the method of punishment appropriate in the circumstances? Do we continue without questioning that? That is what this debate is about today.
Let us try something different. Not all these ideas have come from me; the government has brought some in, and the Northern Territory is not alone with some of these ideas. New South Wales has intensive correction programs. You can look that up on the website and find they have something very similar. Also, looking in isolation at the Northern Territory, it is blinkered. Australia has a major problem with the number of people entering our prisons. It is a problem not just for the Territory; it is a problem for Australia. Other states are looking at ways of reducing those numbers.
I try to put this into perspective because if one narrows this debate down to what is in the legislation - I have some questions I am going to ask in committee stage and I will give you an example. We will have community custody orders. People will be required to work, and they will be required to undertake training. The issue I raised during the briefing was they may be allowed to drink. If they were in prison, they would not be allowed alcohol. In the legislation we have not said alcohol will be banned from someone allowed to stay home under community custody orders. The debate, so far, has mentioned many of the people allowed to be part of the community custody orders were those who had been affected by alcohol. If they went to prison, they would not be allowed to drink. One of the punishments in having someone on community custody orders would be they would not be allowed to drink, and if they were found to have alcohol in their blood, they would immediately go to gaol.
There are areas which need questioning. I agree with the principle. The more alternatives you have the more options for people because not every person and not every case is the same. If you can fit the punishment to the crime, and hopefully that punishment means these people will not come back, that, at least, is a good process.
The other area I am interested in - I do not know if you can back it up statistically - it has been said some people like to go to gaol. It is much better than being home and humbugged. You get three meals a day and, generally speaking, life is not as bad as in some of the communities. The alternative of community custody orders means you stay in that community; you are not automatically going to the house with three meals, a bed, and not being humbugged for money or whatever. Maybe that is more of a punishment. People have said home detention in some cases is harder than being in prison because of the pressure of family, the pressure of the community around you, and the pressure of the pub being just up the road. For some people, this will be the harder alternative. The other side is they may find it is so hard they break the community custody order to ensure they go to prison. It may not work. Some people are pretty clever when working out the easier route.
We have a major problem in society. If we have so many people in prison, there are reasons for that. I do not want to see this debate left high and dry. The ongoing debate has to be how we keep people out of prison. Early intervention is something we have to spend more money on. The child protection reviews have raised the important issue of parenting skills, an area we have to spend more money and time on. Many young people today are having children at early ages with no parenting skills at all. I do not know how those children are going to be brought up in a loving place when mum and dad - if you can call them mum and dad - dad might be around sometimes. Where is the stable environment? Without that stable environment, there is a chance those young people will end up in gaol.
I refer to the Ohio case again. Those six men sat in front of me and said from an early age - we are talking about 10, 11, and 12 - all were able to get drugs. Mainly marijuana at the beginning, and then they went onto bigger drugs which caused them to get into crime - or alcohol. They came from broken families or families where parents were not home. If you fitted within that clientele, you could guarantee someone would be in prison later in life, and the proof of the pudding was those people. They all wanted to get out of it, they all wanted to turn their lives around, but that was why they were there.
We need to debate at another stage - it is part of this overall bigger picture - if we let people out of prison and they have no hope, even if they are doing community custody orders, will they come back again because no one is there to ensure they have a job. Where is the intense follow-up of people leaving prison? Where is the mentoring? We have over 1000 people in our prisons. How many mentors do we have working with these people to ensure they have a job? How much are we working with councils to guarantee people can get a job? How much are we talking with the federal government? The federal government has a fair bit to play in changing the way many of our Aboriginal people end up in the justice system. Without jobs and on continual welfare, the future for many of these people getting out of gaol will be going back to gaol.
It is not just about what is put forward today; it is about the bigger picture. Today we are focusing on the legislation that is part of the bigger picture. We should understand just because we are doing something in relation to options for punishment that there is no guarantee they will work. It is better to try something new, especially when the evidence in front of us is that the existing system is not working. It is better for government to have a go. If it fails, at least it tried. I would rather governments put forward proposals and try something than say: ‘It is all too hard’. Government will be knocked for it, but the proof of the pudding will be whether recidivism is reduced and whether the numbers in our institutions are reduced. If it is not making a difference, the government has to say it was no good and needs to try another path.
Minister, one of the alternatives - I have said to you and your predecessor, Mr Stirling, that you should visit the Ohio system. It is an alternative called therapeutic communities where prisoners help themselves. When you see painted signs on the wall saying: ‘He is my brother’, you will understand the system is about prisoners helping fellow prisoners change habits that got them there in the first place.
We need to look at all options; this is only part of the option. I would like to see a prison farm in Alice Springs or Central Australia. There is land at Holtze. We had one at Gunn Point. We should have a prison farm. Beatrice Hill had a chook farm which lasted about two years. Gunn Point has closed down; Beatrice Hill was closed down under the previous government …
Mr Elferink: For want of prisoners, believe it or not!
Mr WOOD: No, Gunn Point was not short of prisoners, it was just closed; there were other reasons. If the excuse is it is too expensive and we will stick people in a big walled gaol - we have to spend the money to come up with alternatives. The shame is that Wildman River was closed - a terrible decision. We should be looking at juvenile detention areas outside of Don Dale. Don Dale does nothing. It is a concrete and steel structure and that is about it. Wildman River gave first offenders a chance to turn their lives around and was successful. Alternatives need to be looked at. Juvenile crime is an issue. Diversionary programs exist and, in quite a few cases, are successful. It all needs to be looked at as part of the bigger picture.
The member for Port Darwin spoke about the possibility of people getting their licence back after being suspended. I would have some concerns as well. The act says it is subject to a court order not just something that happens. If it was not for that I would be concerned, but there is application for a court order for licence under Division 3. That can be rejected, which is a balance. I understand where the member for Port Darwin is coming from and have some sympathy. The legislation does not say you will automatically get your licence back. You have to apply to the court for that licence. From my point of view, that reflects that legislation has to be flexible enough to take in different situations, different circumstances, and different people. There is enough flexibility in the legislation to ensure it is not an automatic given because that would concern me.
I support the bill. I have quite a few questions to ask in the committee stage. I do not know it if will work. I would rather see something put forward as an alternative to a system that, statistically, we know is not working. As the member for Macdonnell said, there are people who should go to prison, but I wonder if there are other forms of imprisonment that do not require four walls but still send out the message that people are being punished.
I will say something which may come up in estimates. We have to be careful we do not over-emphasise training and those type of things. I am not saying they are not important, but if people are on community orders then a large percentage of the time should be spent working. That is an area the government should tweak.
Mr Elferink: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: I would rather see people do some of their training late afternoon or in the evening, and during the day they should be working. The idea of work camps is giving back to the community. The back of the t-shirt of people in Western Australia says: ‘Paying back to the community’. This is mentioned in the second reading. The emphasis should be on working, no alcohol - that would happen if they were in prison - and training, but do not let it take over the aspect of giving back to the community because they have done something wrong. That philosophy has to be the focus; the training is secondary. I am not saying scrap either one, but the balance has to be right.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill. I am keen to see how it operates in practice, whether there are any changes in recidivism, and whether the community sees this, by its very nature of being out in a community, as a good option where people can be seen to be repaying the community.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, if you are going to expect a different result by doing the same thing you are mad. That is the view Einstein has taken. We have observed the actions of this Labor administration for 10 years, and I am not prepared to allow it to go any further. It is a sham. You have dressed this up and inflated it as though it is something extraordinary. You have called it a whole new era - I have been hearing that for nearly three years. The whole new era is designed to create an impression, once again. This Labor government is more interested in creating the impression rather than getting down to serious work.
The Attorney-General spent most of her time finding tricky debating points to get under the skin of the opposition rather than attend to the serious business of Corrections ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr MILLS: Check your Hansard …
Ms Lawrie: Yes, I have.
Mr MILLS: If you cannot see it, there is something seriously wrong. Calling it a whole new era is one thing; is it a whole new era?
The member for Nelson is probably awake to this. I have been in the Chamber for 12 years, the member for Nelson slightly less. There are things we have talked about in opposition, and me for a short time in government as a backbencher, which are boot camps, work camps and so on. These matters have been part of community discussions. There is a desire within the community for a different approach based on a different principle, that being the first thing you need is to provide a response to a violation of a law - a punishment. The community then has a sense of what is right and wrong; you reinforce what is right and wrong. If we have deemed something to be wrong, there has to be that which is viewed as a punishment that fits that crime.
You then have rehabilitation; you respond to the cause. However, you do not get it the other way round. From the point of view of Labor, you can speak the language which creates the impression you are tough because you know the community wants that. You con them by saying: ‘whole new era’. You pretend you are tough. I cannot believe the Attorney-General can say, with a straight face: ‘These are the toughest laws in the nation’, when the evidence of the application of that law betrays that fact. They may well be tough in some consideration, but they have to be effective; they have to produce results; you have to change behaviour. At the heart of this we do not see any fundamental change in the way you deal with Corrections because if you are going to correct behaviour, that is a Corrections system. If the Corrections system does not change behaviour you will end up with crime rates continuing to rise. That would be the evidence. Do we have that evidence? Absolutely!
It is embarrassing to the government that their tough talk and conning of the electorate - appealing to the conservative instincts of the electorate who want a tougher, clearer, more sensible and logical approach that makes sense and is around community standards. The game is up and they know this government has gone one step too far. What has it done to cover itself? It has buried, concealed and confused people further by not releasing the crime statistics in the same manner as before. That would be further evidence of the con job we have from the Labor administration. People are up to it; they have had it. We are not listening to you any more - you have to see the evidence. If you can say: ‘whole new era’, it has to be that. We have had a decade of this nonsense! We have to have change.
I am disappointed the member for Nelson, with his passion - he has been on about this for a very long time – said: ‘At least you have to try something’. For goodness sake, it is a whole new era. If it is a whole new era, it has to look like something different that will give us confidence that it will produce a different result. This is how difficult it is for those on the other side to grasp this because you say: ‘You guys are always talking about rehabilitation’. Yes, but first the punishment that fits the crime. Send the message then restore, but you have to do it in that order. At the heart of this is the same thinking that has caused the problem. You have it the other way round.
We recognise the home environment is a contributor to the problem that brought people to the legal system in the first place. The thinking behind this is you allow them to go back to that place to send a message. The real problem is the prisons are full because it is not a whole new era. No one is really concerned about going to the prison. I did not send my kids - when I was trying to change their behaviour and let them know what was right and wrong - to their playroom to play with their toys. I sent them to a place to think about things for a while, and then reflect and make a better decision. It was not a pleasant option - eat ice cream until you come to your senses. You have to do something which causes them to reconsider and make a better decision. You do not provide them with excuses. You do not cover a reprehensible action the community has deemed to be inappropriate with an excuse. You have to cover it with a meaningful consequence so there is a second thought.
That is why, minister, the whole new era we described in 2008 - we can have the debate here; we know this is theatre, sadly - was taken to the election in 2008 by the Country Liberals. Make no mistake about it. The community thinks what you are saying is what it supported from the Country Liberals. That was a different approach. A corrections system needs to correct behaviour and we had a different approach. I have been to the prison. Everyone is trying their best, but you have to change the system. I have heard from prison officers that people do not mind going to prison. That is a real problem. We wanted a different approach where it may be unpleasant because it is hard work and there is structure around it. We had described to us, quite clearly, what a prison farm would look like and we were going to take a different approach, a whole new era; change the way the system operated.
I do not see evidence of this here. It is a con job to say we now have legislation to create and substantiate this talk that has been going on for three years, when, in fact, it is an appropriation of something described by the opposition in 2008, which the Territory community supported. You have misappropriated that; used the slogan and the headline to con people. We have not seen any evidence that crime statistics are changing. We have empty assertions like: ‘Trust me’; ‘We believe this will reduce recidivism’. Show us the evidence. Convince us this is going to happen, because the capacity to employ most of the measures described in this legislation already exists.
This is a further opportunity for you to provide a headline, to send a message. Once again, we see this as a political exercise to make the government look as though, in the face of the community, it is doing something. However, it is three years on, we have one year to the election, and you can probably feed some of these threads in. Your focus groups will come up with it, and you will find some way of sorting this out.
By the way, sadly, Territorians, you are paying for these focus groups because the government wants to rebadge itself and give some substance to the look and the feel of government because it has a bit of a problem. The brand is a little broken and people do not listen anymore. People do not come to you at events around the community to say: ‘Gee whiz, you blokes are doing a great job’. I bet that is not happening. I have seen a slackening off of your presence at community events. Sometimes you do not stay too long because when people ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: What I am saying ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, order!
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr MILLS: I have been urged in the past by members opposite: ‘You have to get out there and hear what people are saying. Get out there!’ I am out there and I do not hear those calls coming too often from people on the other side because they are probably hearing the same things I am ...
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Yes, member for Johnston, I attended the show circuit in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Darwin. Whilst I was there – I hope the fundraiser went well in Tennant Creek – I enjoyed it, and it gave me an opportunity to hear what people had to say. They want a genuine, new era which resonates in a way where they believe it will produce a different result to that we are currently seeing. We have not had any adjustment to the rhetoric and it has not produced any result to give people confidence you guys are going to do something different or produce a different result other than having government by slogan. That will not change people’s behaviour.
The community will understand our position; we cannot go along with this sham any longer. You have the capacity to do many of these things if you mean it; if you wanted to do your job and change people’s behaviour, rather than tinkering around at the edges trying to create an impression; not diving in deep enough to make some of the harder decisions about Corrections. You have had three years of talk about new eras which was already established for you to take up. It is a different approach; a different level of thinking you have not adopted. All you have adopted is the language and we will not support it.
Members: Hear, hear!
Debate suspended.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Araluen
Member for Araluen
Madam SPEAKER: Before calling questions, I have given my leave for the member for Araluen to make a personal explanation. I remind you a personal explanation is not a debate. I ask you to follow the normal courtesies and listen in silence.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation regarding the adjournment speech I delivered in parliament last night, Monday, 8 August 2011.
The topic of the speech was the report of the second meeting of the Northern Territory government’s Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee tabled in parliament on the same day. I wish to make it clear for the public record I did not, at any point, make an inference or a reference to the chairman of the committee, Professor Vimpani, as can be noted in the Hansard transcript. Therefore, any allegation that I have defamed, slandered or discredited Professor Vimpani is entirely false and misleading.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
JUSTICE (CORRECTIONS) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 167)
(Serial 167)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, in speaking on the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 (Serial 167), I note a comment has been made by the minister that this is a great new era in Corrections. A great new era is needed to cover the great new problem, that is, the overflowing gaols. I hope the minister is aware there are prisoners currently in correctional facilities in the Northern Territory who are let out prior to their release date because the prisons are full and they need to make room for people receiving court sentences. My understanding, from anecdotal evidence, is this practice has been occurring for some time because prisons are bursting at the seams. No wonder they need to build another new, big gaol.
A number of things have been said today, and I have made notes on some of them. The member for Nelson made a number of very good points. He pointed out gaol is not the only option, and that is true. However, people in the Territory who choose to go against the good commonsense rules of our community need to understand responsibility, accountability and the fact that there are consequences. We need consequences in our system as a deterrent. We also need to fix some of the current systemic policy failures in law and order and alcohol policy. We need to create rehabilitation facilities. If you want to keep people out of the system, you need to rehabilitate them. I ask government to consider some of the Country Liberal Party policies in relation to rehabilitation.
If you remove those people with alcohol problems from your community you will have a reduction in the number of alcohol-related crimes and alcohol-related domestic violence. The problem is it is very difficult, when you give someone a banned drinker notice, to fix their addiction simply by giving them a piece of paper. I have been out in the community since 1 July talking to businesses, licensed premises, shop owners and the public in general and what I hear is very interesting. Unlike the minister, who is hearing something entirely different, I have another story to tell. I will relate that to the House and hope the minister for Corrections and the Minister for Alcohol Policy might take on board some of the issues.
I was talking to some ladies in the community on Sunday who noticed, in the last few weeks, people walking around the northern suburbs sniffing glue and sniffing petrol. It is very sad. These are people they have seen in the community inebriated. Some of these people are probably part of the nearly 900 people on the Banned Drinker Register. They have now turned to another drug of choice - petrol - which is alarming because if you want to kill your brain quickly get into petrol. It is great stuff, it will kill your brain - for some people in about four months. Alcohol takes a little longer, and alcohol is bad enough. Once you give these people a notice, they are going to need something to replace the alcohol.
From talking to businesses and people in the community, these people are still getting alcohol - this is within a month. Taxi drivers say they take people to shopping centres who they believe are on the Banned Drinker Register. They have seen people with half a dozen drivers’ licences. They say they have reported this. When asked if anything has happened they say: ‘No, they still seem to be the same people’.
We have had experience in Alice Springs talking to business people and the police force - and I accept the Chief Minister said today he has spoken to people in the police force and they are very supportive. I accept that; that is fair enough. If the Chief Minister says to police officers: ‘How is my policy going?’ it is probably not going to occur to them to debate government policy with the Chief Minister. A public servant or a police officer is required to implement policy of the government of the day. I do not have any problem with that. In this House we can hold the government to account and point out deficiencies in those policies which, perhaps, the government might take it on.
I am aware that this should be an apolitical issue; however, the government and the opposition, are not poles apart - we are apart, in some areas of how you might go about resolving the problem. We on this side believe alcohol is a terrible problem in the community. Domestic violence happens too regularly and we need to fix it. We believe giving people an option to go to mandatory rehabilitation or stay on the Banned Drinkers Register is not the way to go. The member for Nelson mentioned we should be looking at early intervention, schools and community education. There is a range of issues that should be part of the big, new era of correctional services to cover the big, new problem.
You have to educate people early in relation to, not only alcohol, but all drugs, and the terrible affliction some people have. Addiction can be a terrible thing. Take away the alcohol and what are you going to replace it with? These people are addicted. If you could do that with cigarettes, wouldn’t it be great? You say: ‘Here is a notice that you cannot smoke any more’. ‘Great, I am not smoking any more’. It is not going to happen. Nicotine, alcohol - a whole range of drugs are very addictive.
On this side of the House we hear the Minster for Alcohol Policy say we do not care; we want to put 858 people back on alcohol. That is false, we do not. We acknowledge and share your concerns that there are many people who do not drink responsibly. That is not to say there are no alcoholics. Drug addicts choose different drugs. As a community, we need to fix all of them if we can. I acknowledge government is trying to do something but we do not share the same pathways on how to achieve it. Eight hundred and fifty eight people are currently on the Banned Drinker Register. We do not want to put them back into the community. We would like to put those people into a rehabilitation facility and offer them a real chance of rehabilitation. This is about lifting people’s self-esteem. This is about fixing the stuff that causes some people to take their life. It is low self-esteem; it is having no goal, no vision and no future. If you give these people a future and assist them with their addiction, you might be able to lift their self-esteem, give them a goal and put a light at the end of the tunnel for them to work towards.
The Minister for Alcohol Policy says everyone she talks to is supportive of her scheme. I do not share that, because I am talking to real people who do not share the same view. There are people in non-government organisations determined, if we win the next election and introduce our policy – more than happy to help rehabilitate these people who suffer this terrible addiction. They support our policy. I have spoken about our habitual drunks policy and how we would go about it, and they are extremely supportive. They err on the side of caution in relation to agreeing with current government policy, and I do not expect they would say the same thing to the minister if she walked into their office.
We have to face reality; these people are looking for funding to do whatever the government of the day deems necessary. We hope, if people decide our policies are better at the next election, to implement something similar but far better than what the government has implemented. We do not want to see people back on the street once they have been taken into protective custody, or drink-drivers for that matter. We will give these people the opportunity for real rehabilitation.
That is one of the major differences between what we intend to do and what the government is doing. If a person is given a notice three times in three months they are banned from drinking and on the Banned Drinker Register. They cannot buy alcohol. I can assure members of this House there are people currently on the Banned Drinker Register who are obtaining alcohol. They get other people to buy it for them. The police have far more to do than interview people in all types of places to find out who got what, sold what to who, who paid for it, who supplied it, and take statements and prosecute people for secondary supply of alcohol. Businesses in the northern suburbs tell me when they call police the answer is: ‘Yes, we will get there as soon as we can’. These instances need immediate response. I talk to police officers at barbecues. Police are busy people desperately trying to get on top of many issues. To put another burden on police, to have to investigate secondary supply of alcohol, is going to create a far greater workload for them. Frankly, there are probably other things they would prioritise over getting statements and prosecuting people for secondary supply of alcohol.
The member for Nelson said he wanted people to go into any facility and not return. We have the highest recidivism rate in Australia, which indicates what the government is doing is not working. There needs to be radical change. The government will say: ‘We are bringing in tough new laws’. The problem is violent crime is increasing. Whatever happened has not worked. It will be interesting to see how the Banned Drinker Register works. I would be pleased to be proved wrong and happy to congratulate the government saying: ‘You have cut crime, you have done this and you have done that’. I am sceptical, which is why we have a different policy.
We have 858 people banned, what are they doing? What are they drinking? What are they sniffing? What is the government doing to help rehabilitate those people? The Minister for Health said in Question Time today there are 14 new beds at the Salvation Army. That is 14 and we have 858 people currently on the register. What are we going to do with the other 844 people if there are no beds for them? What help do they receive? Are they left swinging in the breeze? That concerns me. If we do not want these people to come back we need to provide rehabilitation services for them.
I congratulate the government on building the facility in Tennant Creek. Well done! We need more facilities in the area where people live, where there are support services and prisoners from similar backgrounds who can support each other. However, as a community, we need to support the rest, and that is only a 50-person facility at Tennant Creek. The government will say it spends more money on this and that. It is always an interesting argument. The rivers of GST that came to the Territory after the current government won in 2001 meant it had more money than the previous CLP government. I have heard in this House many times the government say: ‘We spent more money on this; we spent more money on that’. It is not about spending money; it is about achieving outcomes.
Money is an input not an outcome. When people say in this House: ‘We have spent more money here and more money there’, it is not about throwing money at problems; it is about real solutions to real problems. That is what we have looked at. We have been talking to people for many years about these problems and believe we have come up with a real solution to a real problem. I would be happy to discuss that with the government and say: ‘Take our policy’. This issue affects all of us; our parents, our kids and our relatives. There is no one in the NT community not touched in some way, shape or form by the problem of alcohol abuse in our community.
We have a problem with growing crimes statistics and the government needs to do something. What has been alarming lately is the demise of Neighbourhood Watch. The government, through Neighbourhood Watch - I am assuming there are some government initiatives - Neighbourhood Watch does not meet any more and does not have area coordinators. You are able to participant in Neighbourhood Watch from the comfort of your lounge room because it is not safe to go out on the streets.
I read in the paper police are telling people not to go out at night because the streets are not safe. In my electorate, I have women who cannot walk around the streets because they are being accosted, touched and harassed by a range of people. These people are being harassed for alcohol: ‘Can you buy us a carton?’ ‘Can you do this?’ ‘Can I give you $50 to buy me a carton?’ There is pressure from people on the Banned Drinker Register, which is not necessarily a bad thing; however, people are supplying them. Taxi drivers are saying this is a very interesting situation. They are told by the people themselves, or their friends, that so and so is on the Banned Drinker Register; however, they pull out half a dozen drivers’ licences and take someone into licensed premises or takeaway shops that looks like them and they are served. There are also people, I am led to believe, freely buying alcohol for their friends and relatives. Does not do us much good!
On the other hand, under our policy, if you are picked up three times in six months you are given the opportunity to go before a tribunal, go to a non-government organisation - one of the service providers - who will then provide some real rehabilitation. If you chose not to complete that or do not fulfil the requirements, that will be an automatic trigger to go to some real mandatory rehabilitation at a rehabilitation facility, at this stage in Katherine and then in Alice Springs. I can hear it now, people will ask: ‘How are you going to fund it?’ ‘How are you going to do it?’ ‘This will cost a lot of money’. It probably will, but the Treasurer tells us alcohol abuse costs about $642m per year …
Mr Conlan: That is the cost of not doing it.
Mr STYLES: That is the cost of not doing it. If we do it and take some of these people out of circulation by giving them some real rehabilitation, we can save money.
The gaols are overflowing. We have people on the Banned Drinker Register who can get alcohol from their friends, get whacked again, and off they go creating havoc. They are using up police resources when they assault people. We then have people in hospitals. We then have people with physical injuries, perhaps for a very long time, perhaps forever. We have people dying. We have people going through the court system. If that person was put into real rehabilitation such as we are proposing, they would not be out on the street. With a little luck we can help rebuild their lives and give them some guidance and opportunities; teach them some skills and, as the member for Nelson said, follow up with some jobs.
I have dealt with many habitual drunks and once they dry out, more often than not are very nice people. They have an addiction and when addicted to things, or under the influence of whatever drug it is, sometimes a nasty personality trait comes out. The community has to put up with that. Unfortunately, the numbers are growing and to stem that we need some serious policies. We need to not only give people the skills to survive in the world so they are not feeling bad about themselves; we also need to teach them about responsibility, accountability, and consequences. They are three words which feature in our policy on this side of the House.
The other thing raised in today’s debate was in relation to community custody orders. If the crime is alcohol-related and people with an addiction are being tracked and told not to drink, that is a big ask. As the member for Nelson said, if you send them home and the pub is just up the road, the temptation is there. Addiction is a terrible thing. What happens if they go there thinking they will sneak in for one, or get someone to drop a carton around home and get smashed there? They start the cycle again; there is the possibility of domestic violence and there is trouble. If the person is found to be in breach they are back to prison.
That is where we struggle. The prisons are overflowing and if these people end up back in prison because they are addicted, we go through the cycle all over again. I accept the minister has said we need a big, new prison to fix our big, new problem, and it will have specialised facilities. I understand we have education facilities at Berrimah at the moment which may not be palatial, but exist. If we have been doing that, why do we have such a high recidivism rate, especially for Aboriginal people? That is a problem the government needs to fix.
I do not know if a new building would fix that. It is about an attitude and what you do. I would much rather see rehabilitation facilities where you can put people in an area conducive to picking up jobs after being released - real job training. Prisons are notoriously difficult places to relax in. These people, more often than not, are only high risk when under the influence of alcohol. These people may be drink-drivers. Of course, people who drink-drive are an enormous risk to our community. I do not need to go into the history of problems with drink-driving. Generally, when these people are sober they are not bashing people, breaking bones or smashing heads in. They can be the recipients of some real rehabilitation where we can give them some hope. Hope is all many of these people need.
I accept, in the statistics somewhere, there are some seriously addicted people we may not successfully change in the short term. We may have to spend longer rehabilitating some people. It is also about giving people outside the circle looking in, the idea that government and opposition - members of the parliament of the Northern Territory - are about making these people responsible, accountable, and aware there are serious consequences for their behaviour. We have to sober these people up, teach them skills and teach them, whilst sober, the responsibility and accountability aspects and that there are consequences.
If you look at the situation as being a number of circles inside each other, the inner circle is a group of people seriously addicted to alcohol who do not have the capacity to hold down a job and are in serious need of help. We would like to, as a community, help those people. The next circle is people on the way to becoming part of the inner circle who lose the will and ability to conduct themselves in a normal manner throughout the day. Those are the people at high risk of us, as a community, losing them forever. Many sit in bars or at home and do not harass anyone or cause problems. However, they are alcoholics.
Then there is a third circle outside those two where people are looking in at the problem. They are thinking: that looks like fun; maybe I can put my feet up, have a few drinks and enjoy the company of some people who are laughing and rolling around looking happy. When we look at some of the problems caused by alcohol abuse we do not find much happiness. However, through tragedies, through family circumstances, by being shunned by the community, a whole range of reasons, these people find themselves coming in from the outside.
As a community, it is beholden on us to educate these people it is not the way to go. These people may end up in protective custody, or have three incidents with the police in six months. They are the people we would be able to win over with the least amount of effort and the least cost to the community. This is the point where we should be putting in a great deal of work - the low cost end. Once people reach that inner circle it costs a great deal. It is not that we should not try, but if we educate our youngsters in schools about the ills of drug abuse, and try to educate people on the outside of the circle coming in and demonstrate to them they may not be able to sit around with their friends, they may find themselves in a rehabilitation facility under a mandatory rehabilitation order, perhaps they might change their behaviour.
The government in debate today, and in Question Time, spoke about changing behaviour. The government said we have to do things to change people's behaviour. If the government takes on board some of the things mentioned today by the Independent member for Nelson and the opposition and implements them, it may help alleviate some of the social issues we have.
I do not resile from the fact we have major problems which need major policies to fix. It is not going to happen overnight. The government does not have a magic wand; we do not have a magic wand. However, the opposition has some ideas we would ask the government to give consideration to in order to improve it for us so our kids, when they go to the shops on Saturday morning, are not being humbugged for money and when teenagers go there they are not humbugged by people to buy alcohol.
Some of these people are going to work out, sooner or later, that you can buy alcohol online. The Minister for Alcohol Policy said we miss out on taxes. People in the liquor industry have told me recently they are already seeing a decline in business and the sale of …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move that the member for Sanderson be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; and thank you, member for Katherine.
There is a range of issues we would ask the government to look at. We would like to see crime statistics in relation to violence. The government does not want to issue those because they are scary at times. We still have major problems with black market alcohol. I received feedback recently that the use of cannabis in Aboriginal communities is on the rise. A reliable source said: ‘I have to tell you, sure, there are people on the Banned Drinker Register, but they are now shifting from alcohol to cannabis’.
If people are addicted to any drug they will go to great lengths to get their supply. Banning one legal drug makes them shift to illegal drugs, and we are seeing that with cannabis, glue, and petrol. The example of petrol and glue is alarming because they will kill people’s brains in a short period. It is like drinking methylated spirits or Listerine when people cannot buy alcohol. When people buy alcohol they are not buying cask wine. They are going for top of the shelf stuff with a high alcohol content. Because it is hard to get, they take the higher alcohol level. They are right up with high level rum. That is of concern because often they do not slow down on the drink; they drink just as much but with higher alcohol content.
We probably will see a reduction in the amount of alcohol sold because there is a shift. I am reliably informed by people in the alcohol industry they are seeing a reduction in sales. They are hearing from people that purchasing alcohol is moving online. Many people can go online now and have it delivered to the house or the post office. If you are on the Banned Drinker Register, I wonder how long it will be before people say: ‘I will not buy in the Territory. I will just have it delivered. I can go to the hotel and drink with my mates, but I cannot take anything home from the drive through or takeaway section’.
The government has tried to fix a problem and created others. There is no mandatory rehabilitation in relation to petrol or glue sniffing. People are calling for that to happen. I hope the government listens to what the community is saying, especially those in the community who have to deal with these problems on a daily basis and those desperately trying to rehabilitate some of these people.
There is a range of issues here. The government says everything is great. Question Time today reflected it trying to get the message out all is well; there are no problems. I can assure the Minister for Alcohol Policy there are serious issues not being fixed by this legislation, and the government will eventually have to deal with the rehabilitation issue. What the government says is mandatory is not mandatory. It will have to make it mandatory so there is no choice around rehabilitation. As a community, we should work out how both sides of this House can fix the terrible problem affecting virtually every person in the Territory. I ask the government to look at those things and perhaps revisit Country Liberals’ policy. We would be happy for you to implement any part of the Country Liberals’ policy you wish.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, listening to the government today in Question Time reminds me of Comical Ali, the Iraqi information minister during the Gulf War. When the Americans were bombing the bridge and coming down the main strip of Baghdad, Comical Ali was saying: ‘It is okay, everything is fine. We are winning the war; we are going to push the Americans back’. I forget his real name, but they called him Comical Ali. He was able to laugh off, in the face of adversity, the Americans bombing Baghdad to pieces. He stood there and put on such a brave face. It is much like the government today. In fact, it is much like the government, full stop, and how it has been for a number of years. Today was a case in point with regard to alcohol measures and the toughest laws we have seen in the history of laws.
The government believes its own rhetoric, which is part of the problem. When you start to believe your own rhetoric or your own rubbish there is really no way out; you are on a dangerous, rocky, bumpy road spiralling out of control. That is where the government is today, it has lost the battle. The game is up; people have stopped listening and are desperate for change. They would probably give you a break if you demonstrate you can change. They might even give you half a chance; however, they have stopped listening.
It is interesting to watch the political analysis programs on the Gillard Labor government. They say that when people start feeling sorry for a government you know it is terminal. People can be angry at the Prime Minister or angry with the government, but when they start to feel sorry for the government it is terminal. There is really no way out; that is when you are in big trouble. I do not know if it has reached that point with you guys. I am guessing in some regional parts of the Territory it may well be. Whether or not they are quite there on the real battleground, the northern suburbs of Darwin, I am not sure but we cannot be too far off.
It has been 10 hard long years of the Labor government and we are seeing these so-called new innovations. It is a bit of an oxymoron; that is how it plays out - a new innovation. We have suddenly discovered alcohol is a problem and have the toughest new measures in the history of the Northern Territory.
To understand exactly what this bill is about and why it is before the House we have to look at how we got here. We have a situation that is completely out of control and has spiralled into a madness situation. The streets are out of control across the Northern Territory. I am not trying to overstate it; I cannot put a finer point on the fact people across the Northern Territory do not feel safe on the streets. Some of the smaller regional parts of the Territory such as Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine, are small country towns where people should feel comfortable and safe. There is a high expectation you can walk from a restaurant to a bar, or another restaurant or club at night without fear for your safety. There is a high expectation you can allow your children to ride their bikes after school into the dusk hours in the parks and playgrounds. There is a high expectation towns across regional and remote parts of Australia, small country towns like Alice - we call it a town but it is a city with wide streets, a lovely, clean, culturally diverse country town where people are drawn for a number of reasons.
However, we have seen as a result of the failed law and order policies of the Northern Territory government - when the government took office it had some grand ideas and was swept up in the euphoria of winning government and wanted to change the world, as anyone would. The first couple of years you tried your best and did pretty well. The CLP was in for 27 years. There is no doubt the back had to be broken eventually. It was, and you guys had a wonderful opportunity. Under Clare Martin, you had your A team. You had some heavy hitters sitting up the front. In the last four or five years things have changed dramatically. That is when we saw the deterioration of our law and order policies across the NT.
We can look at statistics. The government does not like statistics sometimes; sometimes it does. You cannot have it both ways. However, these are the government’s own statistics it no longer wants to release on a quarterly basis because the Department of Justice has recommended that. I bet the Department of Justice has recommended that! It is plain to see why the Department of Justice has done so - they paint a pretty poor picture. They will now be released annually. These figures are the March quarter 2006. I have another one, June quarter 2006, which came in the booklet from the Office of Crime Prevention. We will not see that any more. I have these because it is the last five years where we have seen this escalation of crime or deterioration of law and order - whichever way you like to look at it.
I said yesterday crime rates in the NT are twice as high as the Australian average and, in most categories, significantly higher. The latest Police, Fire, and Emergency Services annual report shows the rate of violent crime in the Territory continues to climb. There were 570 more crimes against the person in 2009-10 than in 2008-09. In one reporting year we have seen an extra 570 crimes. The rate of violent assaults has risen by 80% during Labor’s 10 years in office - a decade of denial some might like to call it. Last financial year there were 7296 crimes against the person, compared with 6226 for the previous financial year - again, an increase. On average, there are 18 crimes against the person in the Territory every single day.
Alice Springs has felt the brunt of Labor’s failed law and order policies. Since 2004-05, robbery has increased by 450%, assaults by 87%, sexual assault by 97%, house break-ins by 64%, commercial break-ins by 185%, motor vehicle theft by 97%, and property damage by 71%. I have read out these statistics a number of times in the parliament; clearly, the message is not getting through. It is resonating across the broader NT. There are all but 12 people in the NT - and maybe a couple of really rusted-on ALP branch members - who think you are doing a good job. The rest of the Territory population are awake to what is happening.
We were talking about the recidivism rate earlier. It was interesting listening to the Attorney-General speak about reoffending. All you have to do is look at the recidivism rates. The Henderson government’s failure to provide adequate rehabilitation services has contributed to these rates rising across the NT. Figures from the ABS show, under Labor, the Territory consistently had the highest recidivism rate of any jurisdiction in Australia. These rates have been well above the national average and are currently at 54.6%. So, 54.6% people are reoffending. We have just over 60% of prisoners at the moment - about 68% prisoners - in 2010 who were previously imprisoned so they are not first-time prisoners.
We have a pretty serious situation, which is why we are here. Clearly, this bill is before the House because the battle for law and order has been lost. The war on crime is lost. If we look at the newspaper - I have held these up before - never miss an opportunity in this House - if you guys are going to drag us here out of beautiful Alice Springs, 27C today, fabulous day, and away from the beautiful town of Central Australia and the Barkly to read out propaganda puff pieces and take up hours and hours of parliamentary time to be symbolic, to suggest you are working, we all know that is not the case. Look at the legislative agenda; it is extremely light on.
We have a bill before the House at the moment, shock horror, lo and behold - news flash! We are going to ensure we never miss an opportunity to highlight the failures of this government. That is my job and what I am going to do. I am going to do everything I can to ensure you guys stay here until 9 pm every night for the next two weeks. No one is getting out of here early if I can help it.
‘Terror on Stott Terrace’ - headline from the Centralian Advocate, Tuesday, 15 February. Another one: ‘Worst Government in the Nation’. ‘Nightmare by the Park’. These newspaper headlines are nearly 12 months old now, but there have been many more and the members for Braitling and Araluen will attest to that. I should start collecting the more recent ones - I had these in my office in Parliament House. ‘Nightmare by the Park’. This one from last year: ‘Sorry Business - Alice Springs shop owner robbed three times and assaulted’. How do you think he feels just trying to make ends meet? The engine room of the country is small business. The biggest employer in the country is small business, and here is an Alice Springs shop owner robbed three times then assaulted. Enough! Is this the Alice Springs we want? No, it is not!
The Henderson Labor government has dealt nothing but lip service and rhetoric to the people of Alice Springs day in and day out for the last 10 years. The series of forums, get-togethers, talkfests and love-ins after the 2007 protest at the convention centre led to nothing. Six months later you ditched the Chief Minister who said she was committed to doing something about it. The member for Wanguri took over. What has he done? Absolutely nothing! We can talk about his failure as Chief Minister when it comes to infrastructure and all that stuff in the north Australia statement coming on a later today, another propaganda puff piece to get us through to 9 pm.
Madam Speaker, that is the story thus far. The reason we have these bills before the House, the reason we have alcohol laws and banning orders, is because of what you have failed to achieve - not what you have achieved. The member for Sanderson talked about the Banned Drinker Register and the cost of alcohol to the community - $642m a year. The Chief Minister loves to stand up, as does the Attorney-General, as does any one of you, and say: ‘$642m a year is how much alcohol is costing the Northern Territory taxpayer. It is 60% of crime across the NT. We need to get tough on it’. That is the cost of not doing it.
What is the cost of doing it? The cost of doing it is to build real rehabilitation centres across the Northern Territory with first-class clinicians - long-term rehabilitation. It has to be long-term rehabilitation. Even short-term rehabilitation is a mechanism to get people off the grog so they can regain some control of their lives.
If it is six weeks, eight weeks, you guys do not mandate rehabilitation. You can continually breach your banning order and you will be issued with a rehabilitation notice.
If you fail to turn up to rehabilitation, there is no custodial sentence; your banning order will continue. You are not giving people a custodial sentence and placing them into mandatory rehabilitation. We believe it has to be some form of long-term rehabilitation in first-class facilities which need to be built across the Territory. They will cost a significant amount of money; the cost of not doing it is $642m a year. Even if it is a six-week, eight-week, or 12-week program, someone has the ability to regain control of their life. It gets them off the booze, the fags, or whatever it is, and gets them into three square meals a day. It is a no-brainer. If they go back - and people will potentially: the evidence is against them, history is against them, stats are against them - they will lapse back into it. However, they have had the opportunity to dry out for a period and make some decisions to better their life and perhaps better their families. That is what mandatory rehab does.
We are trying to paint a picture of how we arrived at this place. Today is the third anniversary of the Northern Territory election on 9 August 2000. Happy third anniversary members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy! It is coming up to the tenth anniversary of the Northern Territory Labor government being swept to power in 2001.
To understand what this all about, we need to articulate why we are here in the first place, and I want to talk about child protection. I am not going to wander off the topic. I firmly believe the home environment for children is intrinsically linked to how they develop as an adult and whether or not they choose a life of crime. That is the choice available to some people, depending on their home environment, and it is important to understand that. The failures by this government in areas such as child protection are important to understand and articulate. The suggestion by the government today that the member for Araluen was somehow taking a swipe at a particular person - she was not taking a swipe at a particular person …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker. As the member well knows, we have a bill before the House. It is the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I ask you to remind the member for Greatorex to direct his comments to the subject before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is a bill before the House. I will give you a level of latitude but if you can come to the bill fairly soon that would be helpful.
Mr CONLAN: I am talking about the bill. The member for Nhulunbuy, if she bothered to listen, would understand that.
Ms Walker: I am listening. That is why I called a point of order.
Mr CONLAN: I said that the home …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you could come to the point of the bill that would be helpful, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: I am developing my argument, Madam Speaker. I have another 12 minutes to go with the potential of a 10-minute extension. I will use every single mechanism, possibility and second I have available to me as an elected member of parliament in this House to do so. I am sorry, I will do it.
Madam SPEAKER: As long as it is relevant.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is being particularly insolent to you. You have directed him to be relevant and he is disobeying your direction.
Mr Conlan: I am not disobeying anything.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex, I remind you it is a bill before the House. We have given you 20 minutes of latitude. If you can come to the bill fairly quickly, that would be helpful.
Mr CONLAN: Twenty minutes of latitude? Madam Speaker, I am specifically talking about the bill and why we are here in the first place. It is specifically about the bill. I do not know where people in this House have been for the last 20 minutes. That is exactly what I have been talking about. I have …
Ms Walker: Rubbish!
Mr CONLAN: I have, in the last 30 seconds, shifted to child protection and highlighted some of the failures in child protection specifically because the home environment for children is intrinsically linked to how someone develops as an adult and whether or not they choose a life of crime. The member for Nhulunbuy might think that is quite funny, but it is intrinsically linked to how we all develop …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I certainly do not find this discussion funny. I am not laughing. I ask the member to withdraw.
Mr Conlan: Withdraw what?
Madam SPEAKER: Both members resume your seat, please.
Honourable members, we have before us a bill about Corrections.
Member for Nhulunbuy, that is not really a point of order. I will not ask the member to withdraw.
Member for Greatorex, I ask you to stick to the content of the bill as much as possible. While there is a level of latitude – member for Greatorex, I am referring to you – if you can stick to the content of the bill as much as possible, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I am glad you understand there is latitude required when discussing law and order issues across the Northern Territory. It is a shame the member for Nhulunbuy does not understand that. She will have her opportunity to speak. I pity those people she represents in Nhulunbuy if she does not understand the latitude required when discussing important issues such as law and order.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is prosecuting the quarrel with the member for Nhulunbuy and is being quite belligerent. Stick to the script, get on with the bill, and let us get on with it.
Madam SPEAKER: Move to the bill, member for Greatorex.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, honourable members! Get to the bill, thank you, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I am talking about the bill. We are talking about crime and Corrections. What part of Corrections do members of this House not understand? To be corrected, you have committed a crime; I am talking about crime – why we are here in the first place.
The member for Johnston clearly wants to wrap things up. If he is not interested in listening that is fine; however, I am and so are people on this side of the House. It is very important to articulate and understand why we are here and why we have reached the point where this bill has been brought to the House. This is my point.
I appreciate your discretion, your understanding and your latitude. If other people in this House - the member for Nhulunbuy - do not like what they hear and do not appreciate it, that is their problem. They can take it up with their constituents.
If you look at where we are in 2011 - I have explained the situation on the streets across the Northern Territory with regard to crime statistics, where we are in regard to rehabilitation across the Northern Territory, and the government’s attitude towards rehabilitation, particularly when it comes to alcohol and alcohol-related crime. It is important to highlight the government’s failure in this area, and that is why we are here. You said we are not talking about rapists and murderers on the streets; we are talking about those other crimes. Therefore, this is not straying from the bill if we are talking about alcohol, alcohol abuse and alcohol-related crime.
The failures of this government in child protection are setting up another generation of criminals. The home environment, and the care and protection of that home environment, is intrinsically linked to how someone develops as an adult.
The member for Johnston loves to throw stones. He is in a glasshouse throwing stones. He had a crack at the member for Katherine today about an Ombudsman’s report from 10 years ago. Member for Johnston, I will see your Ombudsman’s report and show you another 10. How is that? Even a coroner’s report; we might throw that in. What about Mataranka? What about Margaret Winter? You might be familiar with Margaret Winter, member for Johnston. We have the Margaret Winter report from 2006. We have the latest one which has just been tabled, A Life Long Shadow. We have the NTCFC intake service report, member for Johnston. You might remember that one as well. The Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit - do you remember that one? How is that? That is pretty damning as well. A report relating to child protection notifications – another one - and these are over the last few years, Health Community Complaints Service Commission.
This one was good; it should jog a few memory bells for you, member for Johnston: security arrangements. Remember? That was when your job became suddenly terminal. The Ombudsman of the Northern Territory Investigation into the Unjustified Use of Restraint and Detention at Royal Darwin Hospital - there is another one. Who can forget the Growing them strong, together report - where this all began?
I will see your report against the member for Katherine and show you another 10. I have a stack more here too. Do not forget the Little Children are Sacred report; that was pretty good. What about the one into the nursing staff crisis? Holy cow! The nursing staff crisis just about sealed your fate. Or was it the sexual assault on an infant at Royal Darwin Hospital? I am not sure. It is a litany of failures across the board from this government. You sit here and say: ‘We have the toughest laws 10 years on; we are really doing a great job’. Who are you kidding? No one! Certainly not us or the rest of the Northern Territory. There might be 12 people in this Chamber and a couple of sycophantic ALP branch members who think you are doing a good job. However, that is it. You have had it, game is up!
It is very important to highlight exactly where we have been and how we have arrived at this point with the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. If you really want to get on top of Corrections, you have to fix the issues I highlighted. You need to go back to the home environment. You need to get on top of child protection, you need to get on top of alcohol, you need to implement mandatory rehabilitation so people have the opportunity to take control of their lives albeit for five, six or seven weeks - whatever it might be. It is an appalling state of affairs we find ourselves in, in the Northern Territory.
I highlight from the Chief Minister’s statement yesterday - and this is a poignant point. I am unsure if he realised he was making the point he was when this was written for him. Who writes this stuff? Honestly! Fair dinkum, you guys have to get another speech writer. It is really bad stuff - B grade movie stuff; it is not even comedy. It does not take a brain surgeon to look through this. He talked about 40 years ago and Aberdeen. Was he comparing the Northern Territory to Aberdeen?
- Just over 40 years ago, Aberdeen was on its knees. The local economy was in dire straits, people were losing their jobs, businesses were closing, opportunities for young people were scarce,
and the region’s population was declining rapidly.
Does it sound familiar? It is almost the story of the Northern Territory ...
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr CONLAN: Member for Goyder, I can wrap this up in 30 seconds, thank you. It is almost the story of the Northern Territory. Yet, here it is in the Chief Minister’s statement which we will continue debating later this afternoon. Get yourself another speech writer.
Madam Speaker, thank you for your time, your understanding and your latitude. At least someone in this House understands how wide-ranging these issues are and the importance of debate in this Chamber.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, discussing Corrections today, it is ironic the government rolls out Enough is Enough, another pretty brochure package designed to sell to people the government is doing something.
I served most of my time as a police officer in my electorate of Drysdale. My efforts as a police officer were to serve and protect the people in Palmerston. What we have seen under this 10-year regime - which we are about to celebrate or commiserate an anniversary of next week – is, year by year, we have dulled down and softened up the criminal networks and allowed them to be empowered more than the victims by giving offenders another set of tools to explain why they can have bail. This is another alternative; a method by which they can get bail, parole or home detention, another tool for them to wedge themselves away from a prison sentence. This government will deliver a silver platter to the crooks. It will not change their alcoholism, their violent behaviour, or their drink-driving habits. This government will not even seize a person’s motor vehicle if they are repeat drink-drivers.
More than 50% of all our road deaths are attributed to drink-driving, yet we remind the public, if they catch too many barramundi, their car and boat will be seized. If you take a bottle of grog into the wrong part of the Territory, your car will be seized. If you lay a skid - I do not support that behaviour - in the wrong place - not a race venue, a licensed track facility - they will take your car from you. However, if you drink and drive, and continue to drink and drive, not only will they not take your car from you, they will let you have bail, or give you greater reasons to get bail because you might be able to get some form of home detention or a better recording of when you are at home.
You have done a great job to support the crooks. What about everyone else out there doing the right thing - the community trying to do the right thing that is suffering under the hard labour of this government? The community needs to be protected, not the crook. The crook has done the wrong thing; get that through your head. The bad person has committed the crime. Our policies, which were out in the 2008 election campaign and the Chief Minister conveniently thinks the world will forget about – he says: ‘Oh, you have no idea; you have no plan’. There was a raft of policies in 2008.
One of those policies was habitual drunks. Part of that was protecting our community by taking habitual drunks away from communities and providing them a place for rehabilitation. The member for Sanderson spoke well of that. Taking them to a place where they could receive proper rehabilitation but, at the same time, ensuring they could no longer harm themselves or the community.
I heard the Attorney-General today make some cheap shots around comments I made in this House. It is ironic that, as a police officer, I was involved in a forum which was the first truly national alcohol and drugs in communities forum held in Alice Springs in 2006 convened by Superintendent Jeanette Kerr. It was put to the panel from people all over Australia that one of the considerations could be - not a must do, not have to do, could be – that drive through bottle shops are not the best idea. The Attorney-General makes wild claims of: ‘That is it; that is what we are going to do. That is what the member for Drysdale is going to do’. No, the member for Drysdale was highlighting the fact other ideas were put forward. It is irony from this government intent on cover-up that we cannot get a copy of that report any more. That report seems to have gone AWOL, vanished, put in the back of the filing cabinet, locked under top secret, because it supported our argument.
Many of the things said during the 2006 forum in Alice Springs, from all jurisdictions around Australia, supported many of the ideas put forward by the opposition, and they gave reasons. That report has been hidden. Former Superintendent Greg Dowd from the Katherine region issued a two-page document as part of his portfolio paper as a superintendent on antisocial behaviour: crime prevention through antisocial behaviour, or something similar. That two-page document has also gone missing. Why is that not front and centre of your platform if you are serious about crime? It laid out the path, the process, that if you deal with drunk and antisocial behaviour in the earliest part of the day, the benefits and flow-on effect could minimise crime, save people’s lives and protect property. That document seems to have gone missing under this regime of cover-up because it was so logical and married up with what we are saying.
We need better intervention at the right time. The people of Drysdale, my electorate, need better protection from this government. They need to know you are not going to let the crooks out every minute or give them another opportunity to obtain bail, parole, or a sentence that will release them into the community when they have committed a crime. The member for Sanderson outlined a rehabilitation program under the drunks policy we put forward. That is what you should be doing.
Some of your own statistics in the roll-out of Enough is Enough today - your puff pieces in Question Time - clearly demonstrate over 800 people have been identified by your government. It is a great thing to identify these people. That has been a positive - we can clearly identify those people. We would put those people into rehabilitation; they would have somewhere to be. They would receive proper treatment. They would not just be banned: ‘By the way, you are banned. Sorry, find another driver’s licence or get a cousin, auntie or your best mate to buy the grog’. They would have some genuine, hard-nosed rehabilitation which would make a difference in their life.
If you give people another platform to sell their case of why they should be in mainstream society, I can guarantee they will use it. I have spoken to magistrates at all hours of the day - I feel sorry for magistrates at times because you ring them at 1 am, 3 am and 5 am to oppose bail or apply for a domestic violence order – they are not getting much sleep. However, we now have an extra bow for the crooks; an arsenal of how to get out of gaol for free. There is always some penalty attached, but it is another bow for them to say: ‘Let’s get out of gaol for free’. Police officers lock up the bad guy and they are back on the street even quicker under your regime. There are more bows in the arsenal of how to get on the street quicker instead of ensuring the rehabilitation process in our prisons are spotty dog, are right up there, and people who have committed offences receive a raft of rehabilitation regimes. I understand the member for Barkly is keen on this. He honestly believes he is there to make a difference so he listens to this and should be commended for that. However, we are not doing enough to rehabilitate people; we are sending people home to say: ‘Yes, I am here. I am sitting here watching Oprah again’.
That is not getting people into education, not teaching them life skills, not offering them alcohol reform, not ensuring they are unable to cause harm, or go on a one-night bender, or drink-drive again. It is a raft of things and I can see the government is trying but our prisons are overflowing and you have failed to deal with the crooks in the way you should. Showing your licence every time you buy alcohol does not help protect the people in Drysdale, Barkly or Karama.
It is disappointing the government is reaching for odd things which, if thought out and delivered better, could have been something decent, as many of these parts are already available. They are already in the tool box; you just have to apply them. That is often the case with many issues the government’s brings into parliament, such as child protection. If it applied what it has in place properly, we would be better protecting our kids, our families and our friends and would have safer parks to walk through.
The member for Greatorex is right; he has taken most of those reports off his desk. He waved around a raft of reports. The Attorney-General bangs on about a letter from the Ombudsman regarding one of our members eight years ago. That is nearly as long as this government has held power. However, there is a raft of reports condemning this government which are not receiving correction action, and not really cracking down to protect our families and our kids when they should be. The government should not be rolling out pretty brochures and puff pieces like the statements brought into the House this week. It should be getting on with doing the job and protecting our families because it has failed dismally. The crime statistics it is trying to hide again, the culture of cover-up – it will ensure it buries the next set of crime stats until the election so not to cop it again.
It must hurt you in the ribs when you realise aggravated assaults have more than doubled in the last 12 months. It is a shame; the government is a shame. Let the public know there is a better alternative; an option. We have many plans which will be rolled out again, as they were in 2008, to make a difference and help the bad people receive rehabilitation and protect the families of the Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to this very important debate on the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 (Serial 167).
As the Chief Minister regularly says to Caucus colleagues, it is important to come into this House and do something for the Territory community. They are great, team-building talks. It is a great team to work with. I thank the Chief Minister for that advice. I also thank the Attorney-General for her support as a senior and experienced minister of the Henderson government.
This bill relates to part of a raft of reforms in Correctional Services - and a very important part of the reform package. When I talk about doing something for the Territory, this government has been working hard to turn around that unacceptable recidivism rate; to offer the most disadvantaged Territorians a new start and better choices; the community reparation and repatriation; and the Northern Territory real opportunities to move on for the future. It is a very important time in history. It is definitely a new era in Corrections, and I am honoured to be the minister leading that.
In relation to commenting on members who have contributed to the debate, I have my list. I take extensive notes. It started off with two positives, but I have to flick to a couple of negatives. For the member for Drysdale, in my notebook I have written: ‘the member for Drysdale’. I thank you for that.
The next one is the member for Greatorex. Member, I correct your inaccuracies once again. Recidivism rates in the Northern Territory are 47.9%, and the national recidivism rate is 37.6%. It is unacceptable in the Northern Territory, which is one of the important reasons for this major reform in Correctional Services. The member for Greatorex took 28 minutes to mention the bill. However, he used the opportunity. He continues to talk about time in this House and taxpayers’ dollars. He used this opportunity to bang on about his own personal agenda, his own threats and intimidation - threatening members on the other side and, once again, missed the point entirely. He would want to take an interest in Correctional Services because it is an open door. We will offer people on the other side education awareness and support. That is what our government is about and that is what we deliver. If the member for Greatorex wants to drop the venom, drop the attitude, come on board and take part in serious research - I question if he read the bill before he spoke because he had no understanding whatsoever.
For the members for Sanderson and Katherine, I have to deliver two very salient points. The allegations made by the members for Sanderson and Katherine that prisoners are being released early are ludicrous and, frankly, offensive. To release prisoners early in defiance of the terms of their imprisonment set by the courts would be an offence. If the member for Katherine or the member for Sanderson thinks NT Corrections officers are breaching the law in this way, I challenge both members to report their claims to the police.
The member for Sanderson elaborated on further allegations of illegal practices around the purchases of takeaway alcohol, the production of multiple driver’s licences, and reports from the public. Once again, I urge the member for Sanderson, as a member of this House and an ex-police officer, to immediately report those claims to the police.
The member for Sanderson, though, started to touch on the debate. Where he connected with this debate was exactly what the bill offers: the capacity for the courts to send offenders into rehabilitation and training. That is what this bill is all about, and I thank you for your support. It is supported by additional government funding for more rehabilitation beds and building the capacity of the non-government organisations in our community. It is a new era package which offers wider sentencing options for the SMART Court as well. You did come around to making the point, and it was in line with what this government is doing. The other part of your contribution wandered, and got into: what happens if I breach? That is very clear. You need a briefing to learn more about Corrections and the new era package. As an ex-police officer, you would understand it. It is a matter of doing serious research on it before coming into this House and using the opportunity to abuse the government and get sensational media headlines.
The positives relate to this government, with the support of two Independents, making significant changes in Northern Territory Correctional Services as we move this bill through the House.
The member for Nelson was a very important contributor to the debate. It is obvious that he has done much research, with an active and learned approach to the topic. He understands alternative methods of correctional services. He is not looking at this legislation in isolation but as a package of reforms. That is what this is all about as there has been considerable change in Correctional Services, with more to come. He rightly challenges any government with prevention strategies for our youth, society, parents, early intervention and discipline. The link with the new era in Corrections is many of these disadvantaged Territorians are our parents, and we need better legislative tools to deal with them so they become better role models for their own kids, and we reduce this cycle of recidivism and we reduce the possibility of abuse.
The member for Nelson talked about a government having a go, and that is a pretty good summary of this government. Every day of our working life we are having a go, which makes those on the other side uncomfortable, but deep down they know it is the truth. The role of the member for Nelson in the new era was considerable, and I ask him not to underestimate his contribution.
I remember fondly and reiterate the stories of when we travelled, when we went to other jurisdictions and researched new correctional services methodology practice, new systems, new institutions in the youth area, in the adult area, in the industry area, in the agricultural area. We hit the road and took on the challenge of learning. When members stand in debate, those who have done the research hold the topic and deliver for taxpayers’ money, and those members who do not need to question their participation. It comes down to the old saying: ‘If you do not have anything positive to say in a debate, you should not say it’. I will leave that opposition strategy for the Leader of the Opposition to deal with. It looks like the same suits, but the same attitude is coming out after the latest reshuffle. We have seen that yesterday and today.
In our research, we took recognition of other jurisdictions. It is not about reinventing the wheel, as the member for Port Darwin used for an analogy, it was about what works. It was about dealing with the professionals in a number of different jurisdictions, and I thank those officers who participated in our research and made us feel welcome.
Alcohol and the community custody order is an issue and the member for Nelson, I believe, will raise that in the committee stage. This part of a community custody order is a decision of the court. The community custody order has to represent a mainstream legislative tool, and alcohol will not be a factor in offending behaviour for some people. I am confident the court will look at each issue in each case. Whether it is a tradie from the rural area who needs to deal with offending behaviour, or whether it is a person with alcohol abuse, they will be dealt with by the court. The pre-sentencing reports, the communication with the judiciary, the work with the legal fraternity, the intensive work to be conducted by Corrections will ensure this story is told. We are confident community custody orders will benefit the outcomes we are seeking in reducing recidivism, encouraging rehabilitation, and the delivery of training, education and work. The member for Nelson rightly says post-release support and jobs is an interesting link in the chain of reducing recidivism, and everyone in this House would agree with that.
These new orders, these instruments are making the connection with the community and with the system. It is what we call normalisation, so offenders, through these new orders, will be supported into good, strong, mainstream experiences and start to understand how to make better choices.
The member for Macdonnell has a great understanding. It is good to listen to a person with an understanding of remote areas, regional areas, and urban areas. The member for Macdonnell tabled her support in her contribution to the debate on the new era reform package, and also for the legislation before the House today.
The member for Macdonnell has a clear understanding of recidivist behaviour, and articulated that to the House and talked about the relevance and importance of the offenders’ contribution back to their community - which is the essence of this. This is about getting people back into the community and repatriating that community; making a difference in that community, not sitting in a custodial environment with very few opportunities to deal with offending behaviour, particularly the short-term prisoners.
The member for Macdonnell asked the honest question: what will happen if the CLP gets into power? The CLP policy is very clear. It was summed up and was quite shocking. I wrote this down and will probably never forget it. The member for Braitling, on 20 October 2010, said in this House: ‘If I was a prisons minister, I would build a big concrete hole and put all the bad criminals in there’. I have heard nothing since that. I raised it in estimates - still nothing, except talk from the Leader of the Opposition about a commercial television boot camp show which ran a few years ago. That is serious deficit in policy and I encourage the Country Liberals to examine their policy on Corrections and articulate it in far more sophisticated terms than that.
The member for Macdonnell gave a great example of what a community custody order or a community based order can deliver to a young person working at the RSPCA, experiencing mainstream, experiencing real work in real world conditions, experiencing that understanding and joy of looking after animals in that case but, in relation to the package, experiencing real education and awareness on the job in a real world environment.
The member for Katherine was an interesting contributor to the debate and opened the debate with his ‘been in the job for 30 seconds’, which reflected in his contribution to the debate. I acknowledge he probably did not have much time to research this; however, the door is open and you are welcome on the journey of the new era in Corrections in the Northern Territory. I am sure you have valuable offerings. Today there was not much of that. You went for the soft option, the media spin and the one-liners to attract media attention for your headline sensational-type approach and that delivered nought.
You touched on aspects of this legislation that are real. You started to talk about addressing the root cause of crime in the Northern Territory and question why people come to be in prison. You talked about alcohol as a contributing factor and about a tough approach on alcohol. You talked about recidivism. All those elements are what this legislation is addressing in this new era package and what we are seeking to deliver to disadvantaged Territorians who need to be given a new perspective on life. This is a great place and the opportunities are out there. Corrections is about maximising opportunities for those prisoners who come into our realm, also our Community Corrections clients.
You talked about the CLP dealing with the root causes. That is good; however, if the root causes are to be dealt with in a big concrete hole where all the bad criminals are, your policy is not going to deliver for the people of the Northern Territory, the taxpayer, or the future, member for Katherine. You then got back on track. You mentioned the removal of the deterrent factor, the protection of the community; however, you retreated to: ‘allow people to walk free’. These orders are way tougher than a prison sentence because they will be mandating rehabilitation, mandating training …
A member: No, you will not.
Mr McCARTHY: They will be a legislative tool to help address recidivism rates.
We are about new orders, regional initiatives, work camps, prison farms, and a new Northern Territory Correctional Services facility in Holtze. These represent a raft of measures that will impact on the causes of crime, on criminogenic behaviour and on the offending behaviour.
The member for Katherine touched on electronic surveillance and voice recognition to provide greater protection to the community and accountability for offending behaviour. He will probably lose sleep over that tonight when he realises he supported the legislation, and I thank him for that.
He talked about more correctional staff being needed. We are recruiting an additional 31 Community Corrections officers to be stationed across the Territory, member for Katherine, so you are right again. He raised a good question about unpaid staff and tried to be frivolous; however, the story is a good one because many police officers in our regional and remote areas are supportive of our new era package. If a police officer is engaged in surveillance, in supporting a correctional client, he or she will not necessarily be paid by Corrections, they will be paid by the NT Police. There is an example of a professional person within a community context as unpaid staff. When we look at government and our members who reflect a really good cross section of the Northern Territory community we get good input, we get positive input. In relation to this concept, we should be building elders and respected people. It is a hard word, member for Greatorex, respect. Respect people.
Mr Conlan: It is difficult to respect you.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan: He is right, Madam Speaker. It is very difficult to respect him.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting, thank you. You do not have the call.
Mr McCARTHY: These people are important in supporting people who have made the choice to change their lives. Elders and respected persons will be working together with Corrections in a volunteer capacity because they have already expressed …
Mr Conlan: With a drink in his hand.
Mr McCARTHY: You have a problem with that too?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr McCARTHY: You have a lot of problems, son.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, the member then started reading from the bill, which was good; I enjoyed that.
In relation to the member for Katherine’s comments on Alice Springs, let us talk about a couple of initiatives. Let us touch on our government working with the police, engaging a community safe strategy, developing safe houses, and opening the new juvenile detention centre. The Minister for Central Australia, with that important work around the youth hub - what a fantastic initiative in Central Australia! I wish I could get something like that in the Barkly. That is so positive …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: We will talk about the new era support accommodation centre to be built at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre for programs; the Enough is Enough alcohol reform; and the increase in rehabilitation beds and increase in the capacity of the non-government centre. Community support parties was touched on, and the millions of dollars worth of work they do in the Alice Springs community every year. What this new era of thinking is about, and the members opposite need to take notice of, is attaching training to existing initiatives. We have some fabulous things already happening in Corrections, and now it is about making that fusion. Community support parties in Alice Springs are operating everything from whipper snippers to bobcats to tip trucks. We are now attaching accredited training to those initiatives, and skilling up people to make those better choices when they complete their sentences. They are a few initiatives I thought I would touch on because the member for Katherine, once again - negative, negative, negative. These are really good initiatives in Alice Springs. I visit Alice Springs regularly; it is a great place. I feel safe there. Government is about doing things for Alice Springs, and they are a few examples.
The member for Katherine glossed over the orders. It was a pity he did not have an understanding of this legislation but, most unfortunately, he did not have any new ideas.
We are dealing with increasing numbers in Correctional Services - the member for Katherine put out the challenge - you are right. I meet with NT Correctional Services officers all the time and with the POA quarterly. The discussion is always about the fantastic work they are doing in very trying conditions - the Berrimah Correctional Centre. Everyone is supportive of a new Correctional Services facility in the Top End. Everyone is supportive of a new, innovative, state-of-the-art facility that will deliver better outcomes.
The member for Greatorex talked about a building - it is talking about efficiencies, and not only workplace efficiencies, but efficiencies in delivering better education, rehabilitation, and training. Maybe you need to come on board and learn about that because it is an interesting topic. If you take the time you will be better off in the debate.
The member for Port Darwin gave some very challenging contributions to the debate, as usual, and started the debate with therapeutic programs. We use therapeutic programs; we value therapeutic programs. We also value rehabilitation, training, and education in our new era of thinking. We are, in this new thinking, starting to apply better educational practices to all aspects to deal with English as a Second Language, with culturally appropriate protocols, with group programs, and to look at rolling programs. We are dealing with on-the-job training and accredited training. We have started to work within existing systems as well as develop new systems.
There was a very good challenge and question on the definition of the community custody orders, and the difference. No difference, suggested the member for Port Darwin. Being an educated person and a lawyer, you will understand this. I can get you these explanations because you would understand. However, I will, for the House, outline the big difference. The big difference relates to the concept of a suspended sentence. I went on a learning curve about how that was a limiting factor in a legislative tool which was not delivering better outcomes. This is part of the incredible work the Department of Justice has done - many hours of intensive work to look at how we can get better outcomes for the judicial system. Today, as this passes through the House, we will be able to start that communication process, that education process, and lobbying of the judicial system to deliver.
I will read from some of my notes. A home detention order, section 44 of the Sentencing Act, can be imposed on an offender if the court considers a term of imprisonment is appropriate, and that it is also appropriate to suspend it on the condition the offender reside at a particular place. A home detention order can also be subject to the condition that the offender wear, or have attached, a monitoring device and be subject to electronic monitoring. Also, the court can impose such conditions as it sees fit and this may include programs to address the offending behaviour but, generally, the court does not make such an order. It is understood the courts are reluctant to impose further conditions such as undertaking rehabilitation programs unless it is expressly stated they should do so in the legislation.
A community custody order, unlike the home detention order, is not a suspended sentence; it is a day-for-day imprisonment in the community. The electronic monitoring condition is part of a package of compulsory and optional conditions that make up the community custody order such as programs addressing driver safety, drink-driving and alcohol and drug misuse. A community custody order is designed to address the offender’s criminal behaviour and factors contributing to his ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not trying to be cute, I am genuinely asking if you are able to lay that document on the table so I can take it away and read it.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes.
Mr Elferink: Thank you, I appreciate that.
Madam SPEAKER: When he is finished with the document.
Mr McCARTHY: The community custody order is designed to address the offender’s criminal behaviour and factors contributing to his or her offence. The community custody order also mandates that an offender report for a minimum of 12 hours per week to undertake community work, or eight hours of community work and the balance undertaking a prescribed program or counselling and treatment. The home detention order does not - I will skip that because I am running out of time. Once again, these legislative implements are stepping the pace up, driving accountability and normalising opportunities and experience for people who need to see the other side of life.
A community custody order is not a suspended sentence because the offender is serving his or her sentence of imprisonment of up to 12 months duration in the community. It is day-for-day imprisonment. The community custody order and community based order are designed to address the offender’s behaviour and factors contributing to his or her offending by providing a package of compulsory and optional conditions that make up the community based order or community custody order such as programs addressing driver safety, drink-driving, and alcohol or other drug misuse. The community custody order also mandates a minimum of 12 hours work per week, or eight hours of community work, and the balance undertaking a prescribed program. Community work can be an optional condition for the community based order. However, the community work is not a condition of the suspended sentence. There are some significant differences there.
The new era is making a better connection between the judicial system, Correctional Services and the community. They will be able to see the links where they are mandated into programs, where they will be experiencing real work opportunities, where they will go home and feel good about themselves, where they will show their children what they have achieved in a remote community, for instance.
There is a good Barkly Work Camp anecdote. I am collecting them. A group worked with the RSL in preparation for an event. It was not only event management; there was also much physical and maintenance work around the Cenotaph and other buildings. One of the offenders said to Ann Wilson, a stalwart of the RSL and great worker and member of the RSL: ‘When I get out I want to work for the RSL’. Ann Wilson answered the prisoner: ‘That is very good but this is volunteer work; you do not get paid’. The prisoner said: ‘I do not care what it is, I want to work here because I have learnt things here, I felt good here, and I can now see there are choices’. That is just one anecdote. I have many and there are plenty to come.
I was disappointed the member for Port Darwin used the sensational 13 accredited training outcomes. You have to debate accredited training. To put …
Mr Elferink: I said three, by the way.
Mr McCARTHY: … a negative spin on those outcomes is unfortunate, because those prisoners - those 13 outcomes - need positive reinforcement not negative reinforcement. In 2010-11, 691 participants are in accredited training. If anyone understands accredited training, then …
Mr Elferink: What is your completion?
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I move that the minister be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, thank you, honourable members.
Six hundred and ninety one participants in accredited training with plans to get as many results as we can. With our revision of the educational model and curriculum delivery, our continued reinforcement of training and education, our lobbying to get more and more prisoners into training and education in very trying conditions in the Berrimah Correctional Centre, we are experiencing challenges; however, it is a great way to go forward.
The member for Blain’s contribution to the debate shocked me. It was very negative. He did not elaborate on CLP policy, but I can elaborate for him. It is about putting all the bad criminals in that big concrete hole. The member for Blain has much work to do with his team on that side if they are going to put together any credible policy around Correctional Services. When he got back on track was my biggest shock. Those on the other side do not seem to understand the holistic Northern Territory community. You have to look at our Correctional Services system and the challenges we have with the offender cohort in those custodial institutions.
The member for Blain seems to be stereotyping Corrections in the mainstream. The Country Liberals always talk about numeracy and literacy. I have a vision of the classroom with the smart board and the model prisoners sitting there with pen and paper learning literacy and numeracy. The Country Liberals have much to learn and you will learn that when you embark on good, proactive research. That means getting your hands dirty. Look at what we are doing in Correctional Services, look at the people at the coalface doing the work taking up the challenges, because that is what you need to see to get anywhere near the basis of good policy development.
Regarding the member for Blain, the new era, and his problem with semantics, what has our government been doing over the last three years in new era policy and legislation? A mountain of work has been going on and the member for Nelson can testify to that because he has been a positive contributor. The mountain of work has been to look at a system which has not been reducing recidivism. We can all agree with that, and that work had to start somewhere. We looked at existing systems and changes we could make on the ground, and they have been considerable.
We then looked at developing those opportunities, which took us to these legislative tools. That is why we are in this House passing new legislation to give the judicial community, Northern Territory Corrections, and our community better outcomes. From that, we are building infrastructure and I encourage members opposite to visit the Barkly Work Camp. Next is Katherine - a work camp prison farm - an interesting concept where work is going on with Charles Darwin University as we speak. We will be looking at proving to our community these initiatives work when we start rolling them out through regional areas.
That work has not being sitting idle; it represents new era thinking and delivery. The major infrastructure component of the new era thinking had to relate to the Top End because the ageing facility at Berrimah has passed its use-by date. It no longer has the support of our Correctional Services officers and no longer delivers the outcomes we need. We are building a new, innovative, purpose-built facility that will incorporate forensic mental health facilities and offer real opportunities in turning this unacceptable recidivism rate around. That is going on as we speak and is an enormous body of work. I am proud to be a part of a team delivering that for the Northern Territory.
I have one significant submission I received on this new era journey from the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. It is NAAJA’s response to the new era in Corrections and I would like to share some of that. I quote from the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency submission of 23 February 2011:
- NAAJA sees the announcement as an important step forward and we commend the government for the policy direction behind the new era.
- In particular, NAAJA supports the increased focus on rehabilitation, education, training and reintegration.
In particular, we consider the introduction of community custody orders and community based orders to be a positive step in the direction of reducing Aboriginal incarceration rates.
The submission is extensive, but I quote from one more paragraph:
- We support diverting driving offenders from custodial sentences into meaningful rehabilitation and training programs. Likewise, we support the implementation of intensive driver offender program.
NAAJA has some very strong challenges for government and we are working through those. It has endorsed the new era in corrections thinking, our new era in corrections policy and our legislative instruments. I have had positive dialogue with NAAJA about communicating this to the judicial system so Corrections personnel, in the pre-sentencing phase, the solicitors and lawyers that work around these clients, and the judges and magistrates that deal with these clients all understand these legislative instruments are new. They are not totally innovative; they are being used in other jurisdictions; however, for the Northern Territory they are new innovative tools to deal with an offending cohort which needs a hand up not a handout. That hand up is straightforward when you examine it.
As a former teacher in the Northern Territory of over 30 years, it is quite a shock to many of our Department of Justice staff and NT Correctional Services staff when I visit the prisons and receive many cheerio calls, many hellos and much recognition from prisoners who are ex-students. There is an understanding now that they have a minister who, not only has drive and enthusiasm for this, but also has taken on another responsibility with regard to my new era in the Northern Territory.
I ask all members to support this legislation as it goes through because you are sharing in this new era. This new era is about delivering for our most disadvantaged. We can already see from work within the existing systems that we are on the right track. I feel confident that, as we start to turn around the recidivism rate, we will impact on the holistic picture of better community safety.
We are all in this together. It is an important day for the legislation, but one of many important days this government has created and is determined to fulfil. The language in this debate needs to be tempered. There is my offer of research and investigation into better ways. I am prepared to take on ideas from others. I also expect those on the other side to participate in this debate with honesty and a level of enthusiasm. It is a story I want to tell my grandchildren and great grandchildren, as I am sure others do. When it comes to the crunch of: ‘What did you do as a politician?’ I might start the story of the new era in corrections and see how many moons ago it ends up and what it achieved.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to be here. I thank all members for their contribution, the Department of Justice staff who have worked so hard, and the Community Corrections staff who have worked so hard thus far. They are all very keen and committed to the journey ahead as we continue to embark upon the Northern Territory new era in corrections.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I understand you were going to table a document.
Mr McCARTHY: I need this document. It has my notes scribbled all over it.
Mr Elferink: That is not what you promised.
Mr McCARTHY: I will table it, but we have to go to committee stage.
Madam SPEAKER: You need it for the committee stage? All right can you …
Mr Elferink: That is good …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Port Darwin. Are you able to get a clean copy of that organised, minister?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: We will have a clean copy tabled.
Mr ELFERINK: While we are at it, Madam Speaker, the letter from NAAJA he quoted from, I wonder if he can get a clean copy of that as well.
Madam SPEAKER: The report you had from NAAJA, are you willing to table that or a version of it?
Mr McCARTHY: I have notes scribbled all over this …
Mr Elferink: A clean copy.
Madam SPEAKER: If you are able to.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, I will get a clean one, Madam Speaker.
Mr Elferink: I would like to place on the record my thanks to the minister for his openness.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 (Serial 167) together with a schedule of amendments No 66 circulated by the Minister for Correctional Services, Mr McCarthy.
Clauses 1 to 21, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Chair! I did not know whether you were going to ask if we would take the bill as a whole, and I was …
Madam CHAIR: We cannot take the bill as a whole because we are working through amendments.
Mr WOOD: I have the amendments. How do I ask the general questions?
Madam CHAIR: Do you have questions in relation to clauses 1 to 21? Do you have questions in relation to the schedule of amendments, member for Nelson? We are working through a logical progression here. Maybe that is not logical to you, member for Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! Perhaps I can assist? If the minister would be willing to take questions in a more general sense from the member for Nelson, this side of the House will not object. Whilst we are dealing with clauses 1 to 21, a wider-ranging debate with a little latitude from the House may assist the member for Nelson and the minister in the process.
Madam CHAIR: I hear what you are saying, member for Port Darwin; however, we are trying to work through a fairly logical process where we have specific amendments to be made. That is why we are working through this particular process rather than having an open forum for questions.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, if the House is okay with us moving these amendments, as they are fairly simple and people have looked at them, can we have questions after that?
Madam CHAIR: It makes it difficult, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: I can indicate to the member for Nelson that we will not be particularly stickling about procedure if his question range. The Speaker has often ruled the minister has certain latitude in his answers.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. I can work within the parameters you are setting out; however, I was expecting to deal with it as we did with the bills yesterday, but ...
Madam CHAIR: They are different, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: If you give me a little latitude within the clauses, I can get there.
Madam CHAIR: We will try to work through that then. Member for Nelson, do you have any questions in relation to clauses 1 to 21?
Mr WOOD: No.
Madam CHAIR: No. We have agreed to clauses 1 to 21.
Clause 22:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.1. Clause 22 corrects an omission in the bill and amends the regulation-making power in section 101(3) of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. As the amendment to section 101 in clause 22 is currently worded, section 101(3)(e) to (g) will refer to community work orders and community based orders, but should also refer to community custody orders. Clause 66.1 of the schedule will correct this so regulations can be made with respect to community based orders, and community custody orders can be made under new sections 101(3)(e) to (g) of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 31, by leave, taken together.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, you have a question?
Mr WOOD: I would like to deal with clause 25, please.
Madam CHAIR: Certainly. If you would like to put questions to the minister, now is the appropriate time to do so.
Mr WOOD: Clause 25 deals with approved monitoring devices and approved voice recognition systems. My questions will be a little general. What will be the cost of approved monitoring devices which, in laymen’s terms, will be a bracelet? What cost will this program be to the department?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, you will get a general answer as it is out to tender, but the estimate comes in at $1.2m over two years.
Mr WOOD: How will the bracelets be monitored and where will they be monitored?
Mr McCARTHY: There are two aspects in relation to electronic surveillance and the bracelets. One is a physical bracelet fitted to an offender, and the other is a unit which exists in the home that gives an electronic fence, so to speak, which is the area defined in the order. That is monitored in two levels. The first level with Community Corrections, and the second level with the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, where a control room will be set up. There are two levels of reaction to that.
Phone technology transfers signals and a Correctional Services officer, a probation officer, a parole officer, the pager or a computer in the control room will alert any breach in that technology.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. You said there were two types - I did not realise although I had a briefing recently. There will be a type of electronic device around the property or around the house, is that what you are saying? Are you going to have a bracelet where you can move to and from your property?
Mr McCARTHY: No, they are one and the same. The bracelet is attached to the person and a unit sets up that boundary. If it is within the home you are defined to remain in, that picks up a signal which gives you a defined perimeter. If you are to go further than that perimeter, the signal is sent to the officers monitoring that client. It is the same technology. One is a bracelet, the other one is - layman speak, it reminds me of our mobile mike, our FM mike with our PA in Tennant Creek. You have a microphone with the rabbit ears on the amplifier which send the signal around.
Mr WOOD: So I understand it better, if that person is going to work they will only be able to go at a certain time because they will go outside the beam around the house and will have to come in at a certain time. Is that how it is meant to work?
Mr McCARTHY: That is correct. This is part of the structure this delivers around an offender’s life. It delivers accountability as well. If you are going to a training or rehabilitation program or going to work, you will have defined parameters to work within. If you do not turn up for work or do not attend the program, or if there are significant delays, you are going to be asked to please explain. The system kicks into gear.
Mr WOOD: Minister, you said this is connected to wireless. If you are at places like Yuendumu, Wadeye - there were other places you mentioned where this could operate – would it will be restricted to the range mobile phones can pick up in that area?
Mr McCARTHY: Good question. The remote technology is a little further out. The electronic surveillance technology we have been discussing is for the urban areas. We are talking about the roll-out of that in Darwin and Alice Springs for Correctional Services clients.
In the remote areas, we are talking about a similar but different technology - voice recognition technology. That will be available for Correctional Services clients who return to a regional or remote area where a telephone is hooked up to this technology. It could be at the police station, it could be at the council office, it could be in a person’s home or it could be a public phone. That gives the Community Corrections staff, and officers supervising that client, an extra level of accountability to phone in and ensure that person is where they have agreed to be. Likewise, that client can phone in to report to Community Corrections. That will complement the existing system of visits, face-to-face and interface with Community Corrections. I am keen on that technology because it raises the bar of accountability for the Community Corrections client.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I will be interested to see how the approved voice recognition system goes because we do not use it at the moment. On a practical aspect of the bracelets; these were tried some years ago by the previous government and one of the concerns was reliability and the question of lightning. Is there any danger with people wearing these during a storm? Would they break down easily when you have electronic interference from a tropical storm? Are they reliable in those conditions?
Mr McCARTHY: A good Territory question, member for Nelson. First, they have a battery backup; an added fail-safe for this technology. Second, it is sophisticated technology that has advanced over the years. We are looking at the latest and also looking at other jurisdictions. We have been doing research in South Australia and New South Wales. We are shopping around for the best product.
Regarding the question about electrical activity and electrical storms, I do not have the technical expertise to respond now. I would be able to get that information and, once again, the famous word ‘briefing’. Let us get Mr Middlebrook, whom you know, and Correctional Services, to talk to us about that.
Mr WOOD: That is all the questions I have on that section, Madam Chair. What clause were you going to?
Madam CHAIR: We were about to move to accept clauses 23 to 31.
Mr WOOD: I would like to talk on clause 28, please.
Mr ELFERINK: That is where I am going.
Mr WOOD: You can start.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. Minister, I am wondering if those are the clean copies promised, or are they still coming?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, well if we can keep this process going.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. I would like the opportunity to read those whilst this process is going on and can hand over to the member for Nelson whilst I look at what you have. It would be convenient for me, but I am happy to do it without it.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, member for Port Darwin, I have this folder which I have been working off for weeks and I am not going to let it go until we have concluded. I will offer what I promised.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. I thought there were clean copies available. Perhaps not, at this stage.
Minister, the assertion you made with regard to clause 28, the suspended sentencing not having the same latitude as what you are proposing, the expression, ‘as the court thinks fit’, is in the Sentencing Act, from memory, 10 to 15 times at least. It includes in relation to the conditions which may be imposed in the instance a suspended sentence is imposed, namely section 40, suspended sentence of imprisonment. This deals with imprisonment terms of not more than five years. I will go to (2):
- An order suspending a sentence of imprisonment may be suspended the whole or a part of the sentence and the order may be subject to such conditions as the court thinks fit.
That could only be described as a general power of discretion applied to the courts with few limitations. In fact, the only limitation is the five year limitation. How is what you are doing different to a general power of discretion granted to a court?
Mr McCARTHY: I will start this conversation and then get some legal advice. I will start the conversation with where I came in to this, which was the suspended sentence was being used and not mandating any programs, rehabilitation or any community work or community involvement. I came into a system where it was not happening …
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. You do not need legal advice now?
Mr McCARTHY: If you do not mind, I am still speaking, thank you, member for Port Darwin. This was one of many work tasks we entered into and I asked how we could do it better. I said we needed to gain the confidence of the judicial system and the confidence of the community. In legal terms, we framed that opportunity with regard to these two new orders. I am advised by the judicial system, by NAAJA for instance, that this is definitely the way to go and this will deliver the outcomes government is seeking for better rehabilitation, better education and better participation in the community.
In saying that and addressing the banter from the other side about being soft on crime, the challenge is that this is a much tougher pathway than a traditional prison sentence. That is the reality of what I have created and I am very proud of that. It is going to be very much a challenging road ahead. That is where I talk about gaining the confidence of the judicial system to be on the same road and, with our work in Corrections, gaining the confidence of the prisoner, the offender, as well.
I inherited something that, semantically, you have read out which was on paper. However, we have created something better. We have a better tool, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand what you are trying to say. In fact, you said it in your summing up quite succinctly as you read from your notes: the courts have not used these facilities before. I presume that is because those things, until now, have not been provided. Why does it require a legislative change to provide courses when you could provide them under the current sentencing regime, advise the court those courses are available and, then, the court can use its general power of discretion rather than needing specific legislation? I am unsure of your thinking in having to create specific legislation when a general power of discretion is available.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, I am going to set you some homework. It will be on the public record. Your homework is: I want you to research the judicial precedent in R v Quinn. That judicial precedent said the courts cannot impose community work with a suspended sentence. This was my original challenge. I took to my Caucus and Cabinet colleagues, and the Chief Minister, these people have to be in work. We have to have people experiencing real world outcomes. That will develop self-esteem, which is really the essence of reducing recidivism. That related to work, so we needed a judicial tool to do that.
We have done two things. First, we have created an instrument which can mandate community work. We have built additional layers onto that, which represents good outcomes in rehabilitation programs, training programs, counselling, and other important elements of being a good citizen in the community. For many of these clients it is possibly the first time they have engaged in that type of activity in the community for many years.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you for that piece of homework, minister. You never mentioned R v Quinn at any point in the introduction to this legislation. I would have expected, as I specifically raised the issue during the second reading debate, you would have addressed it. Now we have this, can you inform me whether that is a Territory case?
Mr McCARTHY: I have consulted my legal advisor - it is a Northern Territory Supreme Court decision.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. That would have been very useful in your summation.
Mr WOOD: Minister, clause 39E, under Division 4A, is Statutory conditions of order. There is also 39F, Conditions of order imposed by the court, which says a person may be required to reside at a specified place. Could it be the case, especially in an Aboriginal community, that the director or the court may require a person to move to a different community? If that was required, what would be the arrangement? Would their travel costs be paid? What is behind that clause? Is it just that they reside at their house, or does it mean a court could decide they have to go to another place which might be, for cultural or safety reasons, a better place to go?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, there are several stages. First, a place is determined by the court with the judicial representation and the offender. If they want to vary that, they take that back to the court. There is continual dialogue managed by NT Correctional Services.
Your example is a good one because I am encouraging people from regional or remote areas to look at opportunities outside their own community. That will mean movement, opportunities for employment and real prosperity. These things are negotiated in the process. If we look at a general view, where these are offering really good opportunities and outcomes, the courts will look upon them favourably. If it were for cultural reasons, the courts will take that into account and look at the sensitivities. If it were for frivolous reasons, the system will mandate the outcome.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. From a practical point of view, normal community work orders we have today are sometimes done in conjunction with the council. The hours someone will be required to work in the community, under the community based orders or community custody orders, would more than likely, but not necessarily, be done in conjunction with the council because it has those types of jobs available. Has the government discussed the expansion of this program with local government to see if it is willing to work with the government on these programs?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, a great question which gives me an opportunity to share with the House the work our government has been doing. The Minister for Local Government has embraced this at the top level. I have been working with shire services managers at a grassroots level, and other elements of the community that can deliver outcomes of real work. When I talk about real work, I mean project work.
We are also exploring these options with the Barkly Work Camp and what will be the Katherine work camp and prison farm. There are organisations, including private enterprise, that are very interested in giving prisoners a go and giving prisoners an opportunity which I have been working with closely.
One example you may be interested in was talking to the shire services manager at Yuendumu. That person said: ‘We need that extra structure around supporting these people if you want me to provide them with meaningful work and opportunities’. We have created 31 new positions with significant government resources to enable us to look at that across the Territory and target some very strong pilot areas to get this system moving. That was one example. In that community there was a media centre, an arts centre, and an old people’s program which all wanted to offer support. We have matched extra Community Corrections support to make that happen.
We have also looked at resourcing those fundamentals that were frustrating elements of working within the existing system - no PPE gear, no personal protection equipment. If that is a barrier, let us solve it. We have gone into that arena and are now able to provide equipment for these designated programs we have set up. It is a really good outcome. On top of that, having a very dynamic director of Community Corrections, and a very experienced person who you know, that person is looking closely now at opportunities to increase hours of work. If we have unemployed clients, we can start to increase their work because they have opportunities that will deliver better outcomes for them. Other people may be employed and will be specifically doing community work repatriating their community. It is starting to gather momentum and structure as we move through it. That is why we are here today ensuring we are getting the legislative tools agreed to in this House so we can make this happen.
Mr ELFERINK: Can I interrupt for one second please, Gerry? Minister, I am having trouble finding that citation. Can you give me the citation for the case you mentioned earlier?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, I missed that?
Mr ELFERINK: I was wondering, that case you mentioned earlier; may I have the citation for it. I am having trouble finding it on the Northern Territory Supreme Court website.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, I am advised it is not connected to this bill. It is about home detention orders not community work.
Mr ELFERINK: It is not associated with this bill?
Mr McCARTHY: I apologise for that.
Mr ELFERINK: I raised this issue in the briefing, minister. This was not mentioned during the briefing. It has confused me a little.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, I started to explain the frustration I had about the court not being able to mandate work in a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence of imprisonment is available to be imposed where the court sentences an offender to a term of imprisonment of up to five years and considers it desirable to suspend the sentence - section 41 of the Sentencing Act.
A suspended sentence is a custodial sentencing order, whereas the community based order is a non-custodial sentencing order that may be imposed whether or not the court records a conviction. I repeat: ‘community based order’ - one of our new orders.
A community custody order is not a suspended sentence because the offender is serving his or her sentence of imprisonment of up to 12 months duration in the community. It is a day-for-day imprisonment. In addition, although a court has the power to impose such conditions as it sees fit, on a suspended sentence it generally does not impose conditions of supervision to undertake programs or treatment to address offending behaviour. It is understood the courts are reluctant to impose such further conditions unless it is expressly stated in the legislation they should do so.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the same briefing note you read before; the one you promised to table and are now withholding. Could you now table that briefing note, please?
Mr McCARTHY: Out of my folder?
Mr ELFERINK: The one you tucked under your folder when it was handed to you before.
Hallelujah, we have the briefing note, thank you. You say there is reluctance on the part of the courts unless it is entrenched in legislation. Why do you have the impression there is reluctance on the part of the courts unless it is entrenched in legislation when a general power of discretion is entrenched in legislation?
Mr McCARTHY: Because that is the way it was operating in the community. I asked us to step that up because I wanted to mandate work and I saw the need, as this government does, for getting people into meaningful work. I have used another legislative tool in this amendment to achieve that objective.
Mr ELFERINK: That is cool but gets us back to square one. So I understand exactly what has happened, is the case you quoted before relevant to the legislation before the House?
Mr McCARTHY: No, member for Port Darwin, I apologise. It was in relation to home detention.
Mr ELFERINK: Do you see how this makes my brain hurt talking to you sometimes?
Mr McCARTHY: Let us get nasty, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I raised this issue in the briefing and there was no mention of any subsequent court case. Subsequent to that time, I have not been informed of any cases that pertain to this. I walk into this Chamber fully believing my position is correct. I am then told this case exists so I say: ‘I am going to look it up’, and, whilst struggling to look it up because I cannot find a citation for it, I ask you for the citation. I still have not received that but am told: ‘Oh, by the way it does not relate to this piece of legislation’.
This takes us back to the issue I raised before. You have a general power of discretion across a raft of legislation, not just the Sentencing Act, and this reinforces my criticism that this is nothing more than window dressing to suggest you are doing something new when the powers to achieve what you want to achieve have always, and continue to, exist in other legislative instruments.
The fact these programs have not always been available has possibly made courts reluctant to refer people to programs which do not exist. I do not blame them. However, you only require a change of policy to achieve your outcomes not a change of legislation. A change of legislation is mere window dressing when the powers have existed and continue to exist and you, by a simple act of policy change, can bring about your desired outcomes without us having to listen to you quote cases which are inappropriate.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, may I respond to the member for Port Darwin?
Madam CHAIR: Yes, minister.
Mr McCARTHY: First, member for Port Darwin, I do not know what apology means to you but I tried to support your inquiry and asked my advisors if we had an example. I apologise that the example was not entirely correct. It does relate to interesting legislation but was not entirely correct. However, you can continue to play your semantic games and be nasty. Watch your blood pressure, by the way.
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: For those who want to laugh, the member for Port Darwin sent me an e-mail yesterday. He was concerned about my blood pressure. In Question Time he commented on the colour of my skin and was very concerned about my blood pressure, which I appreciate. Member for Port Darwin, what is your blood pressure?
Mr Elferink: It is 110 on 70.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: We are creating a legislative instrument to make things cleaner and tidier. Why bother dressing up a suspended sentence when I encountered it as a frustration in delivering work and outcomes I found existed throughout correctional services institutions in Australia that were paying dividends in reducing recidivism. Why go back? You can play semantics and be the smartest kid in the room. I am about making a difference. I encourage everyone in this House to get on that journey. We have done exactly that. We have created two new orders and will now embark upon a process of educating the judicial system, the community, correctional services and fellow parliamentarians so these two new orders, these instruments, deliver what government wants - to make real meaningful change in disadvantaged people’s lives.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin, is this a question within clauses 23 to 31.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, we are talking about amendments to the Sentencing Act, which is precisely on topic.
Minister, I am not trying to denigrate you. I gave you an opportunity to talk about the programs you are bringing forward which did not exist previously. My only complaint and issue with this is the powers of the courts to refer people to these programs have always existed, and continue to exist, across a raft of legislation not just the Sentencing Act. All I am saying, minister, is we do not have to go through the palaver of introducing a new bill and the window dressing of a new era of legislation when the laws you need exist. It is as simple as that. If you think by someone running into your office saying: ‘We have this great new idea for the new direction, minister, sign off on this’, you do not have to bring some critical thinking on the people making those suggestions, you have to ask yourself what you are doing as a minister.
Critical thinking is all I am asking for. There is insufficient critical thinking demonstrated by the fact that whatever is shoved in your hand you reproduce, including court cases that do not relate to the legislation before the House.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I would like to respond to that because, once again, the member for Port Darwin has it in reverse. Member for Port Darwin, it did not work like that. It was me seeking out people like you with a legal background to ensure we get this right. I started the journey of these two legislative tools then took it to my Caucus and Cabinet colleagues. By the hell was it not debated! It was a great and ferocious debate. We agreed we are going to make a difference. It was me, as minister, and I am proud of that.
I do not have a law degree like some in this room; I go to people with law degrees. When I talk to Community Corrections clients I say: ‘If you are interested in transport, go to a transport operator who makes $1m. They are the person you attach yourself to’. Member for Port Darwin, what we are doing with our Regional Integrated Transport Strategy in places like Yuendumu, Alice Springs and Borroloola is starting to make these links.
I wanted a clean and tidy legislative instrument to ensure it was going to happen. I started this. I have had Department of Justice people working diligently on this for a long time. Now we have it to the House and, as I said, this is an important day. Bring it on! We are talking about the Northern Territory and real outcomes, not egos and personalities.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, is your question between clauses 23 to 31?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I was working in that area but debate shifted. I was dealing with community based orders, Madam Chair.
Minister, for both community based orders and the community custody orders, a person cannot use this section of the act if they have committed a sexual offence or a violent offence. What happens in the case of a DVO? For instance, a person might have a DVO but not been sentenced. While they have a DVO, they might have an offence which is not sexual or violent. Will that stop them receiving a community based order or community custody order?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I have been advised it is the offence that is being dealt with in the court. If the offender comes into court and the nature of that offending relates to a sexual offence or a violent offence, they cannot be included in these new orders.
Mr WOOD: I understand that, minister. A DVO does not mean you have committed an offence; it can be an arrangement between two partners who have not gone to court to be kept separate. However, a person with a DVO who has done something criminal which fits within the guidelines - it is not sexual, it is not violent, it is a crime which could be considered for up to 12 months imprisonment - although a person has not been charged - they have been given one by a policeman or a magistrate - does that DVO stop them being given a community based order or community custody order?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, if you present in a court of law with a DVO, the conditions around that DVO would be explored regarding the opportunity to be given one of the new orders.
Mr WOOD: Are you saying before the court makes a decision it might look at the circumstances around the DVO? I have raised in parliament previously whether DVOs necessarily mean there was violence. As we know, sometimes there is agreement to keep people apart, and I wonder whether we should look again at the way DVOs are classified; whether something was violent, psychologically violent, or whether it was keeping two people having an argument apart. I wanted to see whether a DVO necessarily excluded people from partaking in these orders.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, that case would be examined looking at the nature of the DVO and the relationship to the victim, and physical spaces where people reside, workplaces and so forth. Community Corrections would make those referrals and it would be decided on by the court.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. My next question relates to both community orders and community custody orders. Under the New South Wales Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 section 175 refers to Mandatory conditions for intensive correctional orders. Section (i) and section (j) say - these are mandatory. I will read the sub-heading first:
- The following are the mandatory conditions of an intensive correctional order to be imposed by a court under section 81 of the act.
Subsection (i) says:
- A condition that prohibits the offender using prohibited drugs, obtaining drugs unlawfully or abusing drugs lawfully obtained.
Subsection (j) says:
- A condition that requires the offender to submit to breath testing, urinalysis, or other medically approved test procedures for detecting alcohol or drug use, as directed by a supervisor.
I do not see that as mandatory.
In the bill, clause 39F under Division 4A, Conditions of order imposed by court – general says:
(1) The court must impose at least one (but may impose more than one) of the following conditions on the order.
Why is it not mandatory as part of our orders. It is not mandatory. It says the court may impose at least one, whereas in New South Wales it gives you a long list of mandatory conditions, two of which deal with prohibiting people from using drugs and the other one to ensure they submit to breath testing, urine analysis, etcetera. I am wondering why we have not included it as strictly in our legislation as New South Wales has.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I have been advised in the Territory we have been influenced by the Victorian model. We have based much of our thinking on the Victorian model which relates to not replicating all features of imprisonment. Prisoners are prohibited from drinking alcohol while in full-time custody, regardless of whether it is a contributing factor to the offender’s behaviour or an ‘at risk’ factor. A community custody order, while being a term of imprisonment, is to be served in the community. It is not designed to replicate all the features of imprisonment.
When providing the pre-sentence report to the court, the director of Corrections will recommend the court impose a condition the offender is not permitted to purchase or consume alcohol, if required, because alcohol was a contributing factor to the offending and if it is a particular risk factor for the offender. Alcohol might not always be a contributing factor to the offending, so it is not always required to be imposed. Again, it is not intended, in all aspects, that a community custody order is designed to replicate serving a sentence in full-time custody. In relation to illegal drugs, that would stand within existing legislation.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. I am referring to what I received during the briefing. We might be getting two things mixed up here. The New South Wales legislation clearly states you should not use drugs, obtain drugs or abuse drugs. It also says you submit to a breath test. It is not saying you should not drink; however, it might be saying you are not allowed to drink too much - you should not be over the legal drinking limit. There are certain conditions, one of which is not saying you cannot drink, but you will be required to submit to a breath test, urine analysis, or other medically approved test procedure to detect alcohol or drug use.
Are you saying that exists in current legislation and does not need to be part of a community based order or custody order? Are you saying there is no requirement to have a blood test, drug test, urine analysis, or breath test under our existing legislation?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, it is on an as-needs basis. The court determines the conditions around the order. If alcohol is seen as a contributing factor to the offending behaviour the offender will incur mandatory random testing. If it is alcohol and other drugs, the offender will incur alcohol and drug testing. It is on an as-needs basis related to the offending and determined by the department of Corrections, the pre-sentencing report and the magistrate in the sentence imposed.
Mr WOOD: I understand that and, during the briefing, I thought we were dealing with people who had committed an offence. Some of those people might be in for only 75 days. Part of the punishment may be you cannot drink alcohol. In this case the court can impose that under clause 39F(1)(c):
- The offender must not consume or purchase alcohol or a drug (other than as prescribed by a medical practitioner or other health practitioner).
It can be put in. However, in the debate about community based orders or community custody orders, we are moving people out of prison. When people were in prison, whether they had a drinking problem or not, they were not allowed to drink. To some extent, by moving them out of the big walls they have the freedom to work, they have to perform community orders, and I thought one of those things might have been people cannot drink.
That may be the court’s decision, and this is based more on the Victorian legislation; however, we looked up the New South Wales legislation after it was commented on during the briefing - we did our homework - and the mandatory section for intensive correction orders has that difference. I would not expect someone who has not been banned from drinking to be drunk, and New South Wales is looking at that by including that breath test and urine analysis as a mandatory requirement by the court whereas we are not asking for that.
That may be not so much a loophole but, knowing the Territory has a problem with grog, that would have been a good thing to have left in because the court may have said: ‘We are not banning you from alcohol; however, if we test you, you will not be over the limit’. That is what New South Wales is saying. It is the same as us when it comes to additional conditions which may be imposed by sentencing, and one of the New South Wales conditions prohibits the offender consuming alcohol. Our bill is similar: the offender must not consume or purchase alcohol or a drug.
The New South Wales legislation is a little tighter when it comes to misusing alcohol. It is not saying you could not use it, but misusing it. We have to keep a certain element of punishment in this otherwise people will see it as a soft outcome. There has to be a certain amount of work imposed; I will come back to the work side of it in a moment.
They are my comments on alcohol. I do not know if you want to comment any more. I have an understanding of where you are coming from
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, I can fully understand your position. Let me tell you from personal experience, the Department of Justice legal people are very humanitarian. I was much tougher. They have crafted this into holistic legislation which deals with everyone in our community. I had the impression of the tradie in the rural area on the wrong side of the law, ends up on an order but continues to work, does not reoffend and, in that time, can consume alcohol because alcohol was not a contributing factor. I share your concern that this may prove to be a fault in our legislation. All I can offer you is, like all legislation, we will review this. If we determine that is a factor holding back a very progressive new era initiative, government will address it and bring it back to this House.
Mr WOOD: In relation to work, one of the criticisms of community work orders existing today is it is a nice weekend out at Freds Pass Reserve mowing the lawn. How is this work going to be monitored in such a way that the community, which expects that person on a community custody order, can still do their normal work? A plumber can still do his plumbing and an electrician can do his electrical work but will be required to do at least eight hours a week? My understanding is they can do eight hours a week and, if they are unemployed, up to 20 hours a week, is that correct?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes.
Mr WOOD: That will be community work. What guarantee do I have from the government that the person will not be sitting under the mango tree at Freds Pass or the Tennant Creek recreational sporting area? What will be happening to ensure people see someone working hard not wrecking the lawn mower? I know the tricks of the trade. If you drive the lawn mower into 6 foot high grass and it burns out, you sit there for the rest of the day waiting for someone to turn up with another one. What will be there to ensure the community work is real work and people are not using it as a nice, restful weekend? That is probably when most people will be doing that work.
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, good question. We are building several layers into that. For a person who has existing employment, that will continue. They will be doing work above and beyond their normal work. The only way we can demonstrate accountability is through Community Corrections supervision, links with the community and the community organisation hosting that worker. That is what we are about in building our 31 new positions. Also, there are additional positions I have not talked about in this debate around industry reference group and industry advice.
It is about better face-to-face supervision and relationship building to ensure - as I started this journey and use the clich - no more paint and rock swipe. In remote communities, that is what I am talking about: no more paint and rock swipe. We want real, meaningful project work.
The next layer is our negotiation with providers for opportunities such as the shires and community organisations. They need that accountability; they do not want to have to discipline these people. That is what we are about in building the Community Corrections capacity and linking with the non-government sector. They are very keen to participate.
We are also building our cultural component through elders and respected persons. We want to build a cultural component so elders will be giving advice, counselling and making decisions. Member for Nelson, you know the old school in the Territory. You know the old Aboriginal person and their values. They drive a hard bargain. They are the connections we are making as well, because we want them to be a real determiner of a community reparation work outcome.
The next level we are building is the private sector. I am excited about that because it will be self-regulating. This will be in community work to start with, but when a private sector opportunity comes along which sees a person do some work and contribute to a project, they may be interested in offering them a full-time job - a real job, a paid job. It is about trying to make links there. I am trying to expand opportunities. Community work could be in a remote community, a regional town or a cattle station. We are trying to build every opportunity.
The not-for-profit organisations are the first cab. In Tennant Creek, the work camp is where we started to get a real grip in how the community views this and their aspirations for it.
Having said that, the next level for accountability - and we are building that now – is where Community Corrections clients on community work orders can be attached to a work camp crew or community support program. This means not only in Tennant Creek or Katherine, or as we roll this model out regionally; this also means the mobile components of these camps. Tennant Creek has a mobile component and when it goes to a growth town like Elliott or Ali Curung, the first people on the ground and active will be Community Corrections, to pull in any Community Corrections client in that community and match them up with a structured work output. They are the layers we are building from the ground up.
I will be brutal and tell you where it starts at the moment. In a remote community some Community Corrections people turn up for community work but, because there is no supervision, stretched resources or no structure around to support them, they wander off and we do not achieve an outcome. So, it is about building layers to deliver it. At the end of the day, when we can teach good work-ready skills out of, not only the community work on the weekend for that person, but also the person who is doing 20 hours a week, then private enterprise will offer them a job.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. People need to be convinced this alternative program will do two things: one is repaying the community for an offence and rehabilitation through training and those processes, and the ability for people to learn to work. Some of these people probably have not had a job for a long time. Whilst I understand the concern about painting rocks, if you have reached the stage of painting rocks white, the rest of the community must be spotless. That is not a job I would like. I would put rocks out to stop cars running across where trees were planted or the lawn was planted. With low numeracy and literacy skills, there is plenty of work in communities tidying them up and painting public buildings.
I need some guarantee there will be an independent audit of these programs. You can say as a minister - I understand you want to ensure it sounds and looks good; however, I would be concerned, from a community point of view, that I have seen community orders, which are not the same because there is not the threat - there is the threat of going back to gaol, but in this case there is a bigger threat. The community wants to know these things are working.
Is it possible that occasionally the Auditor-General, or someone else, can assess whether these things are happening? Not by telling them they are coming - that is the worst thing; they will be all working then - by going to a community and saying: ‘There are six people on community custody orders in Yuendumu who are supposed to be doing between eight and 20 hours per week. Where are they? What are they doing at the present time?’ Is there the ability to have an independent check that this program the government is relying on as a new era - that is the logo - is achieving what it said it would?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, member for Nelson, I will be held accountable. As a minister in this House the buck stops with me, as it used to stop with the principal. I will be held accountable, and I am interested in evaluation and assessment, because it delivers good action research.
There are several levels of that too. Community Corrections is case-managing clients; that system will be in place to determine outcomes. We will be able to show real outcomes through case management of clients. If we take it to the next level, the community, we have the opportunity to grow the elders and respected person’s component. Yuendumu is a focus area we are definitely looking at because we want to get pilot studies going. I invite the Council of Territory Cooperation to visit after we get this system in place and we can show developments.
I agree with you, yes, no warning. You do not need to worry about that because you will be able to go into a community and talk to community leaders, community elders, respected persons, shire services managers, managers of organisations within a remote or regional community who will tell you whether it is working or not. We are about making this work.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. We might take you up on that. The Council of Territory Cooperation may take a fly-by-night job or I could visit as chair. I would be looking at more than that. I would be checking out SIHIP houses on the way and maybe talking to local government, because all those things are issues as well.
I have nearly covered everything. There is a statement in the third reading about the use of home detention for bail and parole persons. Is that correct, minister?
Mr McCARTHY: In relation to electronic monitoring and its use in parole?
Mr WOOD: My understanding is the system we use for home detention will be expanded for people who are on bail or parole. That is an option; is that correct?
Mr McCARTHY: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Will the existing system of home detention be any different for people who are on bail or parole?
Mr McCARTHY: Member for Nelson, electronic surveillance could be different - the technology added to that. It will be different in the better interface between Community Corrections and the client. That will come with, not only the additional resources, but also the connections we are building within our communities across the Territory. The basic line is to get people active and involved and building self-esteem and the understanding of what it is like to do a good day’s work and to tell someone what you achieved. There are some basic principles in that, but, system-wide, a new era is strengthening the outcomes and it will do that; not only with human resources, but also with technology, and links with the community.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, minister. That is all the questions I have, Madam Chair.
Clauses 23 to 31, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 32:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I invite defeat of current clause 32 of the bill.
Clause 32 negatived.
Proposed new clause 32:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.3 which inserts a new clause 32 into the bill.
This will correct an oversight due to the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Damage) Act 2010 inserting a new section 132 into the Sentencing Act to provide for transitional arrangements for the amendments made to the Criminal Code. The Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill also purports to insert a new section 132 into the Sentencing Act. Amendment 66.3 will correct this by changing section 132 to section 133 of the Sentencing Act.
New clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 43, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.4. Amendment 66.4 of the schedule will amend the heading to Part IX of the Bail Act which is expressed in Roman numerals to Arabic numerals. Schedule 1 of the bill as it is currently worded amends the Bail Act, amongst other things, to amend the part numbering from Roman numerals to Arabic. The heading to Part IX was inadvertently omitted from the bill.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.5. Clause 13 of the bill inserts a new section 4 after current section 3R in the Parole of Prisoners Act. This amendment commences on a day to be fixed by Gazette notice.
Schedule 2 of the bill inserts a new Part 3 heading after section 4 but Schedule 2 is to commence on assent. Accordingly, the insertion of the new Part 3 heading will not work because section 4 will not have commenced on assent.
Amendment 66.5 of the schedule amends Schedule 2 of the bill by removing the reference to section 4 and replacing it with a reference to section 3R. This means the heading, Part 3 of the Parole of Prisoners Act, commences upon assent of this bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.6. Amendment 66.6 of the schedule corrects an oversight in Schedule 2 of the bill whereby subsection 16(c) of the Parole of Prisoners Act should be amended, not section 16(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4:
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 66.7. This clause amends a minor error in the Alcohol Reform (Substance Misuse and Referral for Treatment Court) Act 2010 whereby the definition of SMART Court in section 3 of the Sentencing Act cited the Alcohol Reform (Substance and Misuse and Referral for Treatment) Act but there is no ‘and’ between ‘substance’ and ‘misuse’ in the actual citation of that act.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2011 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2011 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 22 February 2011.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report to the Legislative Assembly on matters arising from audits conducted over the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, including statutory audits of financial statements, controls audits and Public Information Act matters.
My ministerial colleagues and I value the work of the Auditor-General in assisting the process of transparency and accountability through independent analysis and drawing our attention to matters of interest.
In December 2010, an allegation was referred to the Auditor-General that the Opposition Leader’s News publication breached the principles of the Public Information Act. The Auditor-General found a contravention of the act did occur; that the newsletter contained photographs that might be construed as party political, and the newsletter contains statements of comment rather than fact which might be construed as party political in their content. The Leader of the Opposition respectfully disagreed with the Auditor-General’s findings. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition campaigned for these rules to be put in place. He commented the publication was supposed to be exempt from the act, argued the intent of the photo montage was not to promote any political party, and stood by the accuracy of each article published in the Opposition Leader’s News.
We have a Leader of the Opposition who has a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ style of politics. I remember the debate on this legislation to tighten up the rules around use of taxpayer money for what could possibly be interpreted as ‘for political purposes’. All in this House agreed. There was bipartisan agreement after much toing and froing from staff in my office, the Leader of the Opposition’s office and the member for Nelson. We all came to a very sensible agreement on the new rules to be put in place around the expenditure of public money to, essentially, promote the workings of government. That also applied to the opposition, yet here we have - I think it is on three separate occasions - the Auditor-General has pinned the Leader of the Opposition for being in breach of the legislation he assisted in constructing, with very high moral indignation at the time in regard to a number of government publications. However, when the Auditor-General found he was in breach, the Leader of the Opposition said: ‘I do not care. I do not accept your findings, Auditor-General. I am going to continue to plunder the public purse and use public money for blatant political advertising on behalf of the Country Liberal Party’.
Once again, the Leader of the Opposition’s integrity is being torn apart, bit by bit, shred by shred, in regard to his public persona and the high moral standing he seeks to portray in the community. I find it offensive to the Auditor-General. All of us in this parliament respect the integrity and independence of the Auditor-General, who reports to the parliament not to government. For the Leader of the Opposition to disagree with his findings and to carry on regardless - his integrity is disappearing piece by piece as the days and the months go on.
With respect to the audits of financial statements which are conducted to provide a level of assurance - those statements are presented fairly - all audits resulted in unqualified audit opinions, compliance with relevant accounting standards, and no matters of significance or material weakness with one exception, NT Build. The Auditor-General was unable to be satisfied that all revenues due had been recognised in NT Build’s financial statements. This was largely due to the nature of the building approval process, and some doubts as to whether NT Build has been advised of all construction work that might fall within the scope of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act. The board of NT Build was well aware of the problem and, whilst confident there is a high level of compliance, continues to pursue solutions to the problem.
The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement tabled on 26 October 2010 was again unqualified for 2009-10, and complies with the requirements of section 9 of the Financial Management Act, the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act and the Uniform Presentation Framework.
A controls audit of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure asset infrastructure system replacement program found unsatisfactory controls and identified opportunities for improvements in resourcing, budget monitoring, contract performance, risk management, changed management, and project management. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure accepted the findings and have since implemented all recommendations.
A controls audit of the Department of Justice Integrated Justice Information System found security controls were established but found deficiencies in the security governance process. DoJ accepted the findings and expects the recommendations to be implemented by 30 November 2011.
It is pleasing to note a controls audit of the Department of Business and Employment restructuring and retendering of outsourced IT contracts was a consultative and well-managed process. This view was supported by a defined governance structure and formal project management structure.
For any issues identified for further improvement, the responsible agencies and entities had either already committed to reviewing the issues identified by the Auditor-General or implemented solutions.
The Auditor-General’s February 2011 report provides over 140 pages of information and analysis on audit activity conducted over the reporting period which provides an assurance to the parliament, and all Territorians, that government agencies are transparent and accountable for managing the resources under their control and have been subjected to the highest level of scrutiny.
On behalf of my colleagues, I thank the Auditor-General for his latest report and take this opportunity to express my full support to the Auditor-General for his continued independent analysis of governance and accountability on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, the government and the Territory community, and in continuing to draw our attention to matters of importance. The role of the Auditor-General and the ongoing program of audits of financial statements, controls and compliance across agencies and entities is one of our most vital components in maintaining open government for all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report and hope the Opposition Leader, in future, complies with the rules put in place through this act in regard to the expenditure of public monies for advertising and promotion, rules he assisted in drafting; rules he insisted be put in place to protect the taxpayer from political parties using public monies for advertising, and the rules that now, on three separate occasions, he has breached basically saying to the Auditor-General: ‘I do not agree with your findings; I will continue to plunder the public purse for political advertising’. I hope the Leader of the Opposition ceases to do so.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition has plundered the public purse, what Genghis Khan did to Eastern Europe is the only example I can describe as plundering when it comes to this government and government advertising. It is ad nauseam when we turn on our television sets at night and, during the broadcast of whatever you want to watch, MasterChef, or Australia’s Funniest Home Videos, we are being bombarded by advertising from this government about what a great job it is doing. So tarnished is the government’s brand, what is its response? Even though it is bombarding us with advertising in relation to all these policies, it wants to change the brand. It is rebranding.
It will spend approximately $100 000 on rebranding the Northern Territory government a year out from an election. We know what Labor Party polling is saying. Guess what, Madam Speaker? The government is going to have little focus groups. ‘How are we going’ focus groups? Get a bunch of people in a room together, put the camera on them and listen to what they have to say. Ask some pointed questions and see what they think of government. Do you think the government is not going to piggyback any information from those focus groups into its election campaign? Hell, yes, it is.
This is the most facile attack I have ever heard from this Chief Minister. You have to plumb depths not yet plumbed by diving bells to get to that level of facile conduct.
The Leader of the Opposition’s news, which came to the attention of the Auditor-General by some Labor member yet unidentified as I understand it, complained bitterly about all of the horrible things the Leader of the Opposition was saying. It is dreadful that we had to talk about crime in our community. It is dreadful we had to talk about the highest cost of living. It is dreadful the Opposition Leader had the audacity to raise the issue of hospital waiting lists and increased power prices. It is all wrong says some anonymous Labor person who writes a letter to the Auditor-General and the Auditor-General gives his opinion.
That is fine, the Auditor-General can give his opinion and whatever flows from that flows from that. However, the minister says anyone who challenges the Auditor-General is criticising this noble man and attacking him personally. I cannot begin to imagine how many Auditor-General’s reports I have read in which government departments disagree with the Auditor-General. If that is the yard stick we are supposed to apply, surely the Chief Minister should be sacking one CEO after another for personally attacking the Auditor-General because they have the audacity to disagree with him.
It is all well and good to cloak yourself in the high and mighty position the Chief Minister seeks to cloak himself in. However, his passion for plundering the public purse is only matched by his ability to land motives at the feet of the Opposition Leader, which, if true, would mean most of his senior public servants would have to be sacked.
That is all the attention I will pay to that issue because other issues were raised in the Auditor-General’s report which require a response.
I turn my attention to the Department of Construction and Infrastructure. The Auditor-General makes observations in relation to a suite of programs being replaced by the AMS program, an asset management program, provided by Fuji or Fujitsu - I cannot remember which - that was running somewhat over time and over budget. The switch-on date for this program was originally April 2010. The most recent advice I have received is the switch-on date is now September 2011, 18 months late and $6.4m over budget.
The Public Accounts Committee met today to discuss this matter with the public servants. I place on the record my thanks to those public servants who explained some of the issues which arose. There were clearly issues between the Northern Territory government and the supplying company which played out in various ways and led to the outcomes identified by the Auditor-General. Clearly, the Auditor-General was concerned, had good cause to be concerned, and I remain concerned that a program of this nature and magnitude is running 18 months late and still has not been switched on despite its intended start date of April 2010. Nevertheless, the new CEO of the department who took over the operation has to be commended. When he realised there was slippage occurring in the production and roll-out of this program he took the matter to task and sorted it matter out. It is sad he had to respond in the way he did. Nevertheless, he did, and probably contained a bad situation from becoming worse. Hopefully, we will end up with a system, once it is switched on in September, which will provide a good and serviceable system for the people and the asset maintenance of the Northern Territory.
I turn my attention to the Auditor-General’s comments in relation to the Darwin Port Corporation. The Auditor-General reviewed the ro-ro wharf now being tendered for sale, and I understand a contractor is in the pipeline. The ro-ro wharf was developed in the late 1970s or early 1980s. It is a floating wharf which can take on or purge water, enabling it to rise up or sink down to an appropriate level. The Northern Territory government, through Darwin Port Corporation, was given an amount of money every year which was expected by the Department of Defence to be spent on the maintenance of the ro-ro wharf so they could use it. Events surrounding East Timor were an example of where the ro-ro wharf was used.
Then, all of a sudden, the Auditor-General discovered a situation where $2.117m had to be paid back to the Department of Defence because the maintenance work had not been done. It turns out the idea was the money was to be accumulated until a certain amount of money was available and the wharf was to be repaired in the order of $2.8m or thereabouts. When a quote was sought, rather than being a $2.5m repair it was an $8m repair. It was not economical to repair it. The intent was to send that money back to the Department of Defence. However, we have since been advised contracts have been negotiated where another form of slipway or landing area will be available for the Department of Defence and the little over $2m in question will now, rather than being paid back to the Department of Defence, be rolled into the construction of the new area. That has the effect of making the ro-ro wharf redundant for government purposes and it is to be sold off to a private firm. I understand there is an interested party.
The issue of greening the NT Fleet was raised by the Auditor-General in his report. There will be a change of approach by NT Fleet as a result of this review in relation to how it monitors its carbon emissions. At the outset, the approach of monitoring the carbon emissions by NT Fleet involved taking the manufacturers stated carbon emissions and relying on those. The system had a critical eye cast over it and the Auditor-General has pointed out the system needed to be changed. Therefore, NT Fleet is now looking at fuel consumption as a system by which to monitor the fleet because manufacturers’ recommendations are under ideal driving conditions with ideal drivers. The truth in the Northern Territory is we do not always have both, if either, and, as a consequence, fuel consumption is a better way of measuring the proposed capacity of NT Fleet to drop its emissions by 20% over the period of five years. This presents one problem for NT Fleet because it will now have two systems of counting if it has been able to drop emissions by 20%. I hope that in future years, when the final result is reported on, we use a system by which we can compare apples with apples rather than apples with oranges.
Madam Speaker, I place on the record my thanks to Frank McGuiness, the Auditor-General of the Northern Territory, for his usual diligence. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I acknowledge his work and appreciate the fact he sees us, as a committee, his number one client. I am grateful for the ongoing work he does.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his February 2011 report to the Assembly. A number of areas under my portfolio responsibilities were identified in this report. The first is the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation. The Auditor-General makes comment on the Northern Territory Treasury Corporation in an audit for the year ended 30 June 2010 which resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion issued on 28 September. The audit did not identify any material weaknesses.
The report made comment on the corporation’s profit before income tax, which was $22.6m for the year ended 30 June 2010, an increase from the previous year of $19.1m. This mainly reflects an increase in interest income as a result of an increase in the total value of loans made, and related increase in interest expense.
The Auditor-General also reported on the Power and Water Corporation. The audit of Power and Water Corporation for the year ended 30 June 2010 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion issued on 17 September. The audit did not identify any material weakness in controls. The report noted the activities of the corporation for the year, and its subsidiaries, resulted in a loss of $248.8m compared with a profit of $121.1m for the prior year. This represents a decline in revenues as well as increasing expenses mainly due to the decline in the value of electricity generation and network assets. The decline in the value of electricity generation and network assets is due to the increase in depreciation expenditure as a result of increased investment in the generation network systems.
Government has made provisions for a series of debt to equity swaps for Power and Water Corporation in 2010-11, and over the forward estimates to be reassessed annually. These swaps will assist with funding to bring forward an increased infrastructure investment as part of Power and Water Corporation’s new generation strategy to improve system capability and reliability while maintaining Power and Water Corporation’s fiscal sustainability. Given the significant expenditure and infrastructure the government has determined Power and Water Corporation should seek to achieve a financial rather than a commercial return on assets.
The audit of the Territory Insurance Office for the year ended 30 June 2010 resulted in an unqualified, independent audit opinion issued on 30 September 2010. Territory Insurance Office is required, by Treasurer’s Determination, to comply with prudential standards issued by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority and modified to address specific factors affecting the Territory Insurance Office. The determination ensures Territory Insurance Office is subject to the same level of prudential regulation which applies to other insurers and authorised deposit-taking institutions. For the purposes of the determination, the Auditor-General has been deemed to be the appointed auditor and has conducted reviews of the insurance and banking functions of the Territory Insurance Office during 2009-10. Following that review, the Auditor-General advised Territory Insurance Office had met the requirements of the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority’s prudential standards.
The Auditor-General’s audit opinion on the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2009-10 was unqualified. The TAFR was tabled in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Management Act and the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
Madam Speaker, I thank the board of the Power and Water Corporation and the Territory Insurance Office for the fine work they do in ensuring those authorities are operating at their most efficient and effective way in delivering services to Territorians. I thank the Auditor-General for his unqualified audit opinions.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, yes, the Chief Minister is correct: I have disagreed with the findings of the Auditor-General - and respectfully so - regarding some of the material included in the Opposition Leader’s News being in breach of the Public Information Act. The offending item is the newsletter Opposition Leader’s News.
Importantly, during the negotiations - which I recall well - on this bill it was agreed the Opposition Leader’s News would be treated in the same category as electorate newsletters and, hence, exemption from the operation of the act. However, the Labor Party reneged on that agreement. That aside, noted and not forgotten, I will turn to each of the issues raised by the Auditor-General.
First, I will comment on the fact that a Labor MLA, who remains anonymous, was responsible for the complaint. The Labor MLA who referred the Opposition Leader’s News to the Auditor-General should at least have the courage to identify themself. The hidden Labor MLA disputed a number of statements which characterise the failure of the Henderson government. The electorate has the right to know which Labor politician disputes the accuracy of the statement that Territorians are paying nearly 25% more for electricity than they were two years ago. Which of them can stand up and say they dispute that? Stand up in front of your electorate; stand up in front of your community. You cannot stand up here; however, you can make an anonymous report you dispute it and make a report to the Auditor-General. The price of electricity has increased by 23.9% since 2008 - nearly 25%.
Mr Knight: The second-lowest in the country.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: I think he is trying to defend himself. He is defending himself.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr MILLS: The electorate has the right to know which Labor politician disputes the statement Labor made during the election campaign that power bills would be cut if Labor was returned to government. Who will own up to that being an offensive item they reported to the Auditor-General?
Dr Burns: Like you want to find out which MLAs sent the e-mail?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: Yes, it is like lifting up a rock and out they all scurry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Mr MILLS: The ALP’s 2008 policy platform says:
- Electricity and energy pledges: aim to achieve a reduction in the real cost of Territory energy supply to encourage the establishment of industry in the NT and improve the lifestyle of Territorians.
That is a promise to reduce the price of electricity. The electorate has the right to know which Labor politician disputes the statement. Given we also have the highest rents in the country, which is RP Data’s October survey - one of the countless housing surveys to find Darwin had the highest capital city rents in the nation - the public has the right to know which Labor politician disputes the accuracy of tables showing steep increases in violent crime in Darwin and Palmerston between 2004 and 2009. The tables were based on Department of Justice figures which should be well-known to all Territory politicians. The anonymous Labor politician seems to know very little about the price of electricity, the cost of rent, and the level of violent crime plaguing Darwin and Palmerston. No wonder that person wants to remain anonymous.
Turning to the specific matters included in the Auditor-General’s report, there was a picture of me with the federal members for Warringah and Solomon. The picture had no caption identifying any person or position; the banner in the background is merely incidental and, in any event, is not applicable to the member for Warringah. The intent and effect of the montage was to show the many facets of an Opposition Leader’s job - not to promote a political party …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr MILLS: ‘Some Territory households are believed to be paying up to $1000 more for their electricity than in 2008’, a statement objected to by this anonymous Labor politician. The fact it states ‘some households are believed to be paying up to a $1000 more’ indicates it is a comment. Further, there is nothing inaccurate about the statement: ‘My office has been contacted by people complaining about an annual increase in their electricity bills of up to $1000’. That is a fact!
Another comment this anonymous person was concerned about, so concerned they rushed off to the Auditor-General in breach of the agreement already established when this bill was put in place:
- The Territory government stripped tens of millions of dollars from Power and Water’s bottom line over many years, money that should have been spent maintaining and upgrading the power network.
This wilful plunder of Power and Water’s coffers did untold damage to the Territory’s electricity supply and led to the spate of blackouts that we have endured for recent years.
That is a section from the newsletter …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: The government rushes off to the Auditor-General to have a shot at this one, to close it down, stifling debate. The government does not want any of this out there. This is the response: Power and Water’s annual report shows the Territory government took $78m in dividends between 2002 and 2006, and that money was taken whilst electricity demand increased and maintenance budgets were frozen …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Casuarina substation collapsed in 2008, remember that? More than seven years after the election of the Martin government …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The minister for Business will cease interjecting, as will the member for Greatorex.
Mr MILLS: The Casuarina substation collapsed in 2008 more than seven years after the election of the Martin government and after a reduction in the real maintenance budget for five consecutive years. On 3 August 2006, the then minister responsible for Power Water, Syd Stirling, issued a media release stating:
- Over the years, government and the board have reviewed occupational safety and capital works and repairs and maintenance needs of the corporation.
Had the system been in long-term decline, the minister would have taken the opportunity to say so. He did not. The facts speak for themselves in this matter. Further, I do not agree with the observation that because the Henderson government took no dividends in 2008, 2009 or 2010 is relevant to an analysis of why the electricity system collapsed in 2008. The information provides no insight about the cause of that collapse, nor is the increase in capital expenditure after the collapse in 2008 relevant to the cause of the system failure.
Another quote the anonymous person found offensive:
- Defence wants the RAAF base land but will not say why. The Henderson government supports the Commonwealth’s wasteful and destructive plan.
That was found to be a problem too.
On 11 August 2010, I moved the following motion:
- 1. the Territory parliament indicate its support for the Coalition’s plan to save nearly 400 homes at the RAAF Base Darwin;
2. federal Labor’s intention to bulldoze 400 perfectly good homes was tantamount to economic vandalism in the middle of a housing crisis;
3. the failure of the Henderson government to act to save these houses is symptomatic of this inept, inadequate, dysfunctional government; and
4. in the event of a Coalition government being elected on 21 August 2010, homeless families be given priority in the allocation of the houses that will be turned over to Territory Housing.
- Madam Speaker, the government opposes the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
The government supported the plan to destroy those houses. Given an opportunity to support a motion keeping the houses in situ, the government rejected it and supported a motion which allowed for the houses to be relocated, which was federal Labor’s promise during the election campaign. I maintain moving an entire suburb with nowhere to relocate houses is wasteful and destructive. I note the Auditor-General’s concern that saving houses was first raised by the current member for Solomon might be construed as promoting a political party. It is promoting an incredibly sensible policy in the middle of a housing crisis not a party.
The opposition is supportive of the federal government’s My School website and may run an article about it in the next Opposition Leader’s News. Would that be considered as promoting the Labor Party? Would the government object? I doubt it.
Madam Speaker, it can be said that the Henderson government is desperate to stifle informed debate about its many policy failures. I have no intention of allowing that to happen. I finish the way I started: this whole episode commenced with an agreement that the Opposition Leader’s News would be treated the same way as an electronic newsletter. That agreement was reneged on by Labor.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, this is the second time during these sittings the opposition, and now the Opposition Leader - if an independent body makes a finding they do not agree with, they monster them. Not as directly as the member for Araluen did with Professor Graham Vimpani and his committee. It is obvious from what the Opposition Leader said - he said in writing he respectfully disagrees with the findings of the Auditor-General and has tried, as much as he can, to maintain that. However, he is clearly unrepentant. There has been a finding against him by the Auditor-General that he breached the regulations. He has tried to find every excuse, justification and self-justification of what he has done.
He does not have the power, moreover, to discipline his member for Araluen who has stepped over the line in her insulting remarks about an independent committee which came to a conclusion quite contrary to the one she wants to run. This is the opposition. We saw recently the member for Port Darwin approach the member for Nelson when he disagreed with him and physically stood over him. The opposition consists of a bunch of thugs who, when anyone disagrees with them, they want to monster. Heaven help the Northern Territory if they took power.
The member for Katherine - one only has to read the report by the Ombudsmen to see the allegations by Mr Rowley about the car sale and the threats Mr Rowley felt had been made against him. To see the calibre of the people opposite - they are not fit to hold government; they are bunch of thugs. We knew what the CLP was like during the 27 years it was in power. It wanted to monster people who stood up against it; now we see a return of it. I caution Territorians in relation to the election in 2012.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I want to speak briefly on the Auditor-General’s report. The member for Port Darwin mentioned some of the issues raised in the committee meeting today and I will not repeat those. My comments relate to greening the NT Fleet, which sounds like it should be sung to Greensleeves. It is interesting government policy in that under the climate change policy 2009, the government is to reduce emissions from the Territory government’s passenger and light commercial fleet by 20% by 2014, and 50% by 2020. That is commendable. Without getting into debate over climate change and carbon, we do not want to be polluting our air. We breathe it; the cleaner it is the better. What concerns me is although this policy is good for NT Fleet, as a tiny body in the bigger world we have to look outside the square. When the government introduced the idea to reduce emissions you had to have a Prius. If you did not have a Prius, you were not doing anything for the climate. People bought a Prius.
The previous Chief Minister spoke about gas as an alternative and how that would help reduce emissions, so people were getting their cars changed to gas. The reality is this issue of emissions, by itself, is too simplistic. Someone needs to ask: ‘What is the carbon required to make a Prius, compared to say …’, and I am not trying to advertise here but I need to mention a few names, ‘… the Ford eco tech, which is a small diesel, or the Mini Cooper diesel?’ Those cars have better emissions and performance than the Prius, but everyone bought a Prius. We might get these reductions, but what carbon emissions were required to produce a Prius rather than a Ford? How much carbon was used to manufacture the batteries? How far did the car travel to Australia, because there is a carbon emission in transport? What form of electricity and energy was used to produce the car in another country or in Australia? We should be reducing our emissions.
Sometimes this debate does not go far enough. I will give you an example. I visited a local school running an Environment Day. They told the kids to turn all the switches off: ‘That will save the environment; it will reduce carbon’. We know, on its own, it does not. When you turn a switch off it does not make any difference to the powerhouse at Channel Island. You have to reduce the power by 15% before there is a requirement to turn off one generator. You then reduce carbon emissions.
It is not bad to tell people to turn their power off. From my point of view, it reduces my power bill. That is the way the Clyde Fenton School has been promoting energy saving. The school has power police who go around at the end of the day ensuring all the computers and lights are turned off. The school saved itself $60 000. If it happens in the meantime they have reduced the carbon emissions, good luck to them.
We have to keep our feet on the ground and not tell people something that is not really true. Turning a switch off will not save the planet on its own; everyone needs to do it.
It is the same with NT Fleet. The government has targets to reduce emissions. If the offset was the manufacture of a particular vehicle had low emissions but extremely high energy requirements in its production which produced far more carbon, then have you done anything for the planet? We have to talk planet-wise. While NT Fleet is trying to reduce emissions, it is a very narrow view. The government’s strategy in relation to carbon emissions needs to be a little more fulsome, a little more global, otherwise you could be convincing constituents you are saving the world by reducing emissions when you may not be and could be making it worse.
Although it is difficult to show these things, the debate on energy requirements and carbon needs to be much more focused on the bigger picture rather than favourites that will look good. If you were to ask me whether it is making any difference to the carbon emissions worldwide, that question needs to be answered before we change emissions in a few vehicles in the Northern Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s report for February 2011. The report to the Legislative Assembly includes the following matters in relation to the Department of Business and Employment: the IT outsourcing project; Data Centre Services financial statements audit for the year ending 30 June 2010; the Government Printing Office financial statement for the same period; and the NT Fleet financial statements audit for 30 June 2010.
With respect to the IT outsourcing project, auditors were of the view that a formal and consolidated approach was defined and followed by the IT outsourcing initiative, which is supported by the existence of a defined governance and formal project management structure. The audit confirmed a new outsourcing service model was achieved, although there were some minor disruptions to services during the transition period, which is understandable.
The audit identified a post-implementation review of the revised sourcing strategy and the service model had not been completed at the time of the audit. It was acknowledged management planned to undertake a post-implementation review after the contracts had been in a steady state for a reasonable period after the transition. A post-implementation review was undertaken with a report provided to the chief executive in April this year. The review identified opportunities to enhance the government’s future projects of a similar nature. There was quite a massive change with the IT project and we have some significant financial gains for the Northern Territory through that project, and also real clarity on future growth in the various areas of IT.
With respect to the government business division financial statements, the report confirmed unqualified audit opinions, that is, no significant problems identified. We provide the GBD divisions of Data Centre Services, the Government Printing Office and NT Fleet. The summarised financial statements analyse and are complementary of the Auditor-General’s report, and are a fair representation of the 2009-10 financial report and the position of the GBDs. Detailed financial information for the GBDs is available in DBE’s 2009-10 annual report, which is published on the DBE website. It is all clear for DBE and the GBDs underneath DBE.
Madam Speaker, we thank the Auditor-General for his professional approach to this report and look forward to further scrutiny of the operations of our department and other departments.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General’s February 2011 report to the Legislative Assembly includes two matters relating to my portfolio responsibilities.
First, the Auditor-General’s comments in relation to the Jabiru Town Development Authority. The Jabiru Town Development Authority is chaired by Senior Executive Director of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, Fran Kilgariff, and has overall responsibility, under the Jabiru Town Development Act, for the maintenance and development of the town of Jabiru, the issue of subleases of land in the township, and the administration, management and control of the town. As members would know, the town is located on land vested in the control of the Commonwealth Director of National Parks and a part of Kakadu National Park. The authority continues to hold the lease for the land used for Jabiru town purposes, and to administer the 1985 cost sharing agreement relating to the establishment of the town.
The Auditor-General has undertaken an audit of the authority’s 2009-10 financial statements, which resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion. The Auditor-General found the financial statements comply with Australian accounting standards. While the audit of the JTDA was unqualified, the Auditor-General noted, as he has in the past, that the authority’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on the continuation of a moratorium on the authority’s future interest and repayment of loans due to the Northern Territory government totalling $8.8m.
The background is, in the course of establishing Jabiru, the then Northern Territory government, through the Northern Territory Treasury, provided loan funds to JTDA to fund over-design services, mainly water supply and sewerage services constructed to meet the expected population needs of the town. The expectation at the time was the Northern Territory would recoup this investment as further development occurred in the Kakadu region. In 1986, the government granted JTDA a moratorium on the repayment of the loan and interest payments in acknowledgement that the anticipated growth of the town had not occurred. Each year, the authority’s auditors request the Northern Territory Treasury for confirmation of the status of the moratorium. In respect of this audit, the Northern Territory Treasury has confirmed the moratorium on the interest payment and loan repayments is ongoing.
The authority remains capable, as it has in the past, of operating and performing its functions in relation to the administration and development of Jabiru while the government maintains its moratorium on the repayment of the loan. The situation will continue until it is resolved in the context of the review of the 1985 cost-sharing agreement involving Energy Resources of Australia, the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory government, and decision-making about the future of the Jabiru lease arrangements.
The other area of comment in relation to my portfolio responsibilities is in relation to Territory Discoveries, a government business division operating as a commercial wholesaling arm of Tourism NT. In particular, Territory Discoveries is responsible for generating business for the Territory’s tourism industry, particularly small- to medium-sized Territory tourism businesses through packaging and marketing NT tourism products and services to travel agents and consumers in Australia and New Zealand, as well as other major international markets.
For the year ending June 30 2010, Territory Discoveries reported a nett profit of $107 000 in a competitive environment and Territory Discoveries’ financial statements were tabled in the Legislative Assembly as part of Tourism NT’s annual report in November 2010. The Auditor-General has reported Territory Discoveries financial report was in accordance with Australian accounting standards and has provided an unqualified audit opinion. The audit did not identify any material weaknesses in controls.
Madam Speaker, it is important that government sets a good example in the administration of public monies and has an open and transparent system of governance with public reporting and debate on the audits of public accounts. I thank the Auditor-General and his staff for their work, and thank him for the audit work in relation to my portfolio responsibilities.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I welcome the latest report from the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General, and his office, play an important role in ensuring Territorians have confidence in the financial and reporting processes of government agencies. The report covers audits conducted during the period 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010. I am pleased to advise that across my portfolios the Auditor-General did not, in the majority, identify any material weaknesses in controls. Where recommendations have been made to improve systems, these recommendations have been acted upon.
Turning first to the Construction Division of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, Budget 2011-2012 delivers a $1.5bn infrastructure project supporting 3000 jobs and representing a 300% increase in funding since 2001. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure, and the Construction Division, has a driving role in delivering the government’s infrastructure program for the benefit of Territorians. The Construction Division is a government business division responsible for the project management of government’s capital works and repairs and maintenance programs. Its income for the year was $89.76m, up from $66.1m in 2009. That increase is due, in the main, to an increase in the project management fees earned as a result of the increase in the value of the projects managed - up $415m or 52%. In 2009-10, the division managed 3211 projects worth $1.2bn, up from 2875 projects worth $794m in 2008-09. That is a significant achievement and I commend all at the Construction Division for their efforts.
In his February report, the Auditor-General reviewed the Department of Construction and Infrastructure’s processes around the replacement of the asset information system with the asset management system. In particular, the Auditor-General considered the project management, governance and control and contract management controls. The asset management system is being introduced to replace the outdated asset information systems to improve, amongst others, contract performance managing, budget monitoring and reporting and risk management. The Department of Construction and Infrastructure will manage and maintain the new system on behalf of all agencies once operational. Once operational, AMS will provide a whole-of-government asset management system greatly improving asset management, planning and reporting capabilities.
In his assessment of the Department of Construction and Infrastructure’s processes to install the asset management system, the Auditor-General noted issues around project costs, resourcing and contract management. I am pleased to advise the Department of Construction and Infrastructure has responded in full to the Auditor-General’s recommendations. As noted in the Department of Construction and Infrastructure’s response to the report, additional resources have been recruited on a full-time and part-time basis to make certain the project will be completed by the go live date.
Further project costs are monitored each month by the asset management team and project board, with a requirement for additional costs to be approved by the steering committee. Monitoring methods for the consultants’ performance have been improved, and to quote from the DCI response:
- All retention monies on all milestone payments continue to be withheld.
Quoting further from the DCI response:
- In January 2011, PricewaterhouseCoopers undertook a review to provide a current health check on the project. This review included time lines, increases, deliverable and current risks.
PricewaterhouseCoopers has validated the original scope against what is being currently delivered, looked at potential for a reduction in scope and reviewed future planning.
While there is still room for improvement with constant monitoring and consolidated reviews, the project will proceed under strong governance, sound project management and robust contract management framework. I look forward to the full implementation of the asset management system and the benefits for government agencies.
The Darwin Bus Service is a government business division which, with private sector operators, delivers bus services to the Territory. This government is working hard to improve public transport services across the Territory. In the last year we have introduced new express bus routes between Darwin, Palmerston and Casuarina. We have expanded bus routes in Alice Springs; we have established a new Cullen Bay bus service; and we continue to provide free public transport for pensioners, seniors and students. In addition to regular services, the government also provides free buses to major events including the AFL, BassintheGrass and the V8s. The Auditor-General did not identify any material weaknesses in controls in his audit of DBS for the year to 30 June 2010. The increase in operating expenses is noted. This is mainly due to the introduction of a bus service between Cullen Bay, Bayview and the city, delivering on another election commitment.
The Darwin Port Corporation is a government business division operating the Darwin Port Corporation Act. The corporation provides commercial and non-commercial services including berth facilities, cargo handling, marine industry support, development and management of the Darwin wharf precinct for tourism and recreation and provision of port and reception facilities for crews and naval vessel visits. The audit of Darwin Port Corporation for the year ending 30 June 2010 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion. The audit did not identify any material weaknesses in controls. The corporation realised a nett profit for the year of $0.33m. That is a sound improvement from the previous year where it experienced a loss of $1.51m.
The improvement in the operating result is predominantly due to an overall increase in port tariffs together with an increase in the volume of cargo handled for the year. The corporation’s nett asset position increased by $11.608m to $176.345m. This was due largely to the re-evaluation of the corporation’s assets during the year. The report notes the impact of an accounting change concerning the roll-on/roll-off facility. The change, which is in accordance with a recommendation from the Auditor-General, was deemed necessary because the port corporation did not recognise the Department of Defence original capital contribution of $2.117m as revenue when the amount was received in 2003. The accounting adjustment was subsequently made in the 2010 financial year.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General and his staff for their efforts. These reports are an important component of delivering open and accountable government services.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Children under the Care and Protection of CEO, Department of Children and Families
Children under the Care and Protection of CEO, Department of Children and Families
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Araluen:
- Madam Speaker,
I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance –
That the Northern Territory government needs to answer serious questions regarding the oversight of children in the care and protection of the Chief Executive Officer
of the Department of Children and Families
It is signed by the member for Araluen.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
I remind members it is 20 minutes, 20 minutes and then all other speakers 15 minutes with no extensions.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I first presented you with this proposal for a matter of public importance yesterday morning, Monday, 8 August. It is now Tuesday evening, 9 August, and much has changed in the last two days. Much has changed for the government, and much has been revealed to the public of the Northern Territory of how desperate this government is in its provision of child protection services in the Northern Territory.
This government needs to answer many questions regarding the oversight of children in the care and protection of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families. Before I get to specific examples of what I originally planned to talk about, I bring to your attention the two reports presented to parliament in the last 48 hours pertaining to child protection in the Northern Territory.
The first is the Northern Territory government’s Growing them strong, together Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee report following the second meeting of this committee between 26 and 27 May 2011. This report was tabled in parliament on 8 August. It does not contain any information as to the author. There is nothing in this to suggest who wrote it.
My comments last night in adjournment debate were around the fact this paper does not have a face to it. This paper suggests the committee is formed and driven by the government - that this paper was perhaps written by the government, suggesting a watchdog is in place to oversee the implementation of the 147 recommendations of the board of inquiry report into child protection in 2010. This committee was set up to monitor the implementation of those recommendations. There is nothing in this report to suggest that is what this committee is doing at this stage. It is a very disappointing report, not giving anyone any confidence this government is committed to an independent external impartial committee to monitor what it is doing.
It is very important to the community of Alice Springs, and the different parts of the Northern Territory, that this committee provides some transparency to what the government is and is not doing with child protection. After the succession of reports and inquiries into the failure of this government, we need this committee to provide specific information on how the government is progressing in its reforms of the child protection system. This report did not provide any information to suggest this committee is doing that job.
My comments regarding this report were to a faceless group of people - perhaps to the government - whoever wrote this report, suggesting I am disappointed and the people of the Northern Territory are, no doubt, disappointed in what they read in this report.
The second report presented to parliament in the last 48 hours was the report of a partial investigation of the child protection authority written by the Northern Territory Ombudsman titled A Life Long Shadow. This is a partial report because the Ombudsman’s role was changed by the government. She was effectively marginalised, sidelined, and told to stop talking about child protection, stop working on child protection, stop highlighting the deficits, the incompetency, stop telling them they are doing a bad job and get on with the other business you are assigned to do. She will be no longer required to investigate matters pertaining to child protection. This is a partial report because the government could not stand to hear the very well-considered and genuine concerns of the Northern Territory Ombudsman.
She presented the first report to the government on 29 June 2011. She presented the final report to the Minister for Child Protection, who apparently sat on this report for a month before handing it back to the Ombudsman saying: ‘No, you have to present this final report to the Chief Minister’. One question I would like answered by the minister is: ‘Why did you sit on this report for a month? Why did you not immediately hand the report back to the Ombudsman and expedite the process?’ I can only imagine that month was used to buy some time, to perhaps seek legal advice on how you could further gag the Ombudsman in her endeavour to expose the failures of this government when it comes to child protection.
The report the Ombudsman provided the community of the Northern Territory is another example of how this government has relentlessly tried to cover-up the failures it has been responsible for when it comes to child protection. It will do anything to cover-up. It will do anything to hide its maladministration, its mistakes, and this report once again exposes the culture of cover-up that is this government when it comes to child protection.
This report came about as a result of three things. The first was the Ombudsman was being approached by staff of the child protection authority who were concerned about the inadequate response to notifications within the system. They had various complaints about the internal operations of the child protection authority.
The second reason was these people felt they could face reprisals and recriminations as a result of being too vocal, which they learnt through the experience of Susan Mansfield who has publicly been identified as a problem for the government, and has been the subject of considerable recriminations and reprisals because of her decision to go public and expose the deficits within the child protection system.
Also, the death of Deborah Melville acted as a stimulus to this report being written. Through these three things, the Ombudsman decided to commence her own motion investigation. She wanted to protect the source of her information, so she decided to undertake an own motion investigation into child protection. This, of course, was not met favourably by the government.
The things she has exposed within this report are fairly consistent with many other reports delivered in the Northern Territory over the last 10 years. She was very damning, very critical; however, she used an evidence-based approach. She used facts gained from 17 cases which she felt demonstrated the points needed to be delivered rather strongly in her report. She was very critical of the Central Intake System, which she felt was totally under-resourced. She was critical of the fact the Northern Territory public health system only required notification orally; they would not accept written notifications, with the exception of the police. She was very critical of the backlog. She felt information provided to the minister was somewhat questionable and probably manufactured rather than absolute, soundproof data. She was also critical of the fact there were no mandatory investigations. A child can come to the notification of the department 10, 20 or 30 times but they are under no duress to investigate.
She delivered 28 recommendations in the report and the government rejected 40% of them. Forty percent of her recommendations were not agreed to, or opposed, by the government. Well, that is a surprise. The government has effectively dismissed 40% of what she feels needs to be done to improve the child protection system of the Northern Territory.
One which I found intriguing was No 7, which has relevance to the Susan Mansfield case.
Recommendation 7 of the report was:
- That the facility for professional notifiers to e-mail or facsimile notifications be restored to the NT public hospitals.
The government has opposed that; it does not think professional notifiers should e-mail or fax notifications. That is the point where it has zeroed in on Susan Mansfield and her decision as an independent professional person in her own right. She decided to provide written notifications not just oral notifications, and for that she is the subject of an inquiry into her conduct.
The last two days have presented a range of interesting information which, sadly, reinforces the state of affairs this government is in when it comes to child protection.
Today the minister spoke about the makeup of the External Monitoring and Reporting Committee and gave some incorrect information, no doubt unintentionally. He mentioned two members of the committee who, we are fairly confident if not certain, are no longer on the committee. Donna Ah Chee and Charlie King are no longer on the committee. Minister, you are not up to date; you do not know who you have appointed to the committee. There is a vacancy for the Ombudsman to be appointed to that committee tonight - if you would make the decision - and be an effective member of a committee that should be watching what you are doing, should be making you accountable, should be making the whole process transparent and above board so the people of the Northern Territory can develop some confidence in the care and protection of children and how you go about your business. There will never be accountability in the system until such a day comes.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs LAMBLEY: You mentioned today, for the second time, I failed to turn up to a meeting of the Child Protection Monitoring and Reporting Committee in Alice Springs. I was not invited, minister; I have never been invited to meet with them. I turned up at the Council of Territory Cooperation meeting on 25 May because I heard, by accident, Dr Vimpani was attending. I flew here but he was too busy to see me, which was fair enough. I did not have an opportunity, even at that stage, to spend 10 minutes with him face-to-face. You can accuse me all you like; you can try to deflect and create a smoke screen. The member for Johnston can have a temper tantrum because it is all coming undone …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs LAMBLEY: You are coming undone, minister. You cannot hide any longer …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could you remind the member for Araluen she needs to be directing her comments through the Chair not across the Chamber, thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, through the Chair.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Things are coming unstuck and this government has lost control when it comes to child protection.
The story I wanted to tell tonight was about two children in the care and protection of the CEO of the Department of Children and Families who have come to grief in Alice Springs over the last four weeks. Sadly, these two cases illustrate a system that is letting children down, that is dysfunctional and causing grief not only to the children involved, but the community of Alice Springs. Like the Ombudsman, who has graphically detailed 17 cases, these two cases the minister would no doubt be aware of very clearly demonstrate things need to improve dramatically.
I am not going to provide too many details of the cases because one of them is part of a coroner’s investigation, and the other one is part of a legal investigation; however, I have many questions the minister needs to answer around these cases.
On 8 August 2011, a little boy in the care and protection of the CEO of the Department of Children and Families, or the minister - they are both synonymous in my mind and in the minds of most Territorians - was run over by a vehicle outside an Alice Springs town camp. This little boy had an intellectual disability, was well-known in the community of Alice Springs, and attended a local school. Many people have expressed their absolute grief and horror about the loss of this little boy’s life. A coroner’s investigation is currently being undertaken. I believe the boy is to be buried later this week. This child has died in the care of the minister. This is another Deborah Melville; another loss of life under the supervision of this minister and of this government ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member is going to make statements in this parliament she should use the right terminology. She knows very well that, under the act, a child is not under the care of the minister. They are under the care of the Chief Executive Officer of the department. This legislation was passed in this parliament, Madam Speaker.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw my comments. The CEO of the department is under the management of the minister. There is very little difference in the point I am trying to make. For your benefit, minister, I will use the correct terminology.
This little boy was known as a very active child; he was known as a runner. I am told he would run everywhere. He was highly active; he was rather impulsive but everyone knew him to be extremely active, running around the place frantically everywhere. He was placed temporarily, or in a long-term situation, I do not know, with family at the Old Timers Camp which has no gate and free access to the road. I am not going to labour this but questions have to be asked around the suitability, generally speaking, of the placement of this child with a family at Old Timers Camp irrespective of who the carers are - the physical amenities and safety required for that child given his type of behaviour. What was the case management plan for this child? What was the plan for supervising this child while staying at Old Timers? Why was the boy not living with his parents? Perhaps it was because the parents could not provide adequate safety measures and the special needs this boy required. Was this child ready to be placed back with family if he was living with family at the Old Timers Camp?
Many questions have to be asked, and no doubt the coroner, as he did with Deborah Melville, will be delving deeply into why this little boy died. The CEO of the department and the minister need answers to these questions in order to provide some confidence in the community when it comes to this little boy.
Finally, a 12-year-old boy allegedly sexually assaulted a six-year-old girl in a public park in Alice Springs. This tragic event has stunned the community.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, this government has many questions to answer regarding how it protects children in care. The Growing them strong, together report had 47 recommendations pertaining to out of home care …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the interest the member for Araluen has in the two cases in Alice Springs. I will respond to them first.
The first is about the death of a five-year-old boy in Alice Springs which is not regrettable, it is tragic. It is tragic when such a young child dies from injuries sustained from a road accident. The incident took place on 8 July 2011. The child was in a temporary placement arrangement and was struck by a vehicle in Alice Springs. It is believed he ran onto the road. That temporary placement arrangement, member for Araluen, is a placement agreed to by the parents or guardians of a child and occurs under section 46 of the Care and Protection of Children Act.
That child was out of home, under the care of the CEO, because he had complex medical needs the family could not meet. At the same time, the Department of Families and Children was working to reunite the child with the family. At the time of the death the child was with its parents. The department is investigating the incident in order to find out what happened, how it happened and, of course, how it can be avoided in the future.
The second incident, the sexual assault of the six-year-old, is a tragic incident and the department is working with the children and families involved. The Sexual Assault Referral Clinic on-call counsellor visited to provide crisis support to the mother and the child, and coordinate with medical officers in Darwin and the police. The police are still investigating the issue; it has not been finalised. I understand the child was in the care of the Chief Executive Officer, placed in kinship care with family. The incident took place in school hours.
These are two regrettable and tragic incidents which should not have happened; unfortunately they did. The department is working with the families to find out how similar incidents can be prevented in the future.
The member for Araluen spoke about the report by the independent Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee I presented yesterday. She said she did not know who had written it, who is on the committee, or who did what.
Let me remind you, member for Araluen, when the board of inquiry presented its report to the government, it made 147 recommendations for the reform of the Territory’s child protection and child and family services system. Following this presentation, the government made a commitment to allocate an extra $130m over five years on top of the $140m annual budget of the department. In addition to that, it decided to appoint an external, totally independent committee to oversee the implementation of the recommendations.
The committee is chaired by Professor Graham Vimpani, a Professor of Community Child Health and Head of the Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Newcastle. That was made public at the time. A media release highlighted everyone on the committee. Other people on the committee are Dr Sven Silburn, Director of Health and Education at the Menzies School of Health; Terry Murphy, Director General, Department of Child Protection in Western Australia; Frank Hytten, Executive Officer, Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care; Jacqui Reed, CEO of Create Foundation, Teresa Neihus, President of Foster Care NT, and, at the time, Donna Ah Chee and Charlie King. Donna accepted a job in Canberra and had to leave and Charlie was very busy and asked to be relieved of the responsibility, which we accepted. People have been approached regarding the two vacant positions and both will be filled soon.
This committee has as chairman, Dr Vimpani. If you bothered to read the report the very first paragraph says:
- The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee (CPEMRC) was appointed by the Minister for Child Protection, the Hon Kon Vatskalis MLA, to undertake an independent monitoring
role in regard to the implementation of the reforms agreed to by the Northern Territory government following the release of the Growing them strong, together report of the Board of Inquiry (BOI) in
October 2010. The committee reports to the Northern Territory parliament through the Minister for Child Protection every six months on the progress of the implementation of the reforms.
The very last of that paragraph sentence says:
- This is the committee’s first report.
Who wrote the report? This is the committee’s first report so there must be an author. That report is written by the committee. That is in the very first paragraph of the report you have in your hands. Next time, before you make a statement, read what you have in your hands.
The member said she was not invited to meet the committee. Hundreds of people in Alice Springs met the committee because they attended the meeting. No one was specifically invited to meet the committee.
I have received a letter from you asking to meet with the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee at the earliest opportunity. I cannot do that. It is an independent committee. If you would like to meet with the committee I suggest you grovel to Dr Vimpani, after the attack you launched yesterday, and request a meeting. I am sure Dr Vimpani and his committee will find the opportunity to meet with you. I cannot organise a meeting. It is an independent committee which does not take direction from the minister. If you want, I can give you the phone number for Dr Vimpani and you can ask for a meeting and possibly explain the comments you made yesterday about the integrity of the committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Araluen has form. Today she asked a question in parliament about a child she alleges was exposed to domestic violence. When everything was explained and I read the statement from the mother, she issued a media release accusing the government of exposing a child to domestic violence despite the fact the mother issued a statement saying she was under control …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: That shows …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members! I ask honourable members to observe Standing Order 51:
- No member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the affect of interrupting a Member speaking.
I will be putting people on a warning if that continues.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Araluen has the audacity to issue a media release after Question Time reiterating the untruth she said in parliament - that somehow that child was exposed to domestic violence when the mother of the child made a statement saying this did not happen.
Should I believe the member? I cannot believe her because it does not matter what we say or what evidence is presented, she will twist the truth and try to mislead Territorians, which she did this afternoon with a media release …
Mr Bohlin: How did they get the baby to scream its head off?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: They saw a photograph of you - cannot stop screaming.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! That was rather an offensive comment and he should withdraw it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw, please.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is very difficult to hear when members are constantly interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. Again, the report …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister made an offensive comment and you should ask him to withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did ask him to withdraw; and I thought he had.
Mr VATSKALIS: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the CLP does not like the report we presented today and is well-known for trying to bully people who have different opinions. This report is not …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The minister continues to be offensive towards members on this side of the House. Can you ask him to withdraw that last comment, please?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw that word, please
Mr VATSKALIS: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Again, if they do not like the report they will find something to criticise; to accuse the committee that because it was wined and dined it produced a sanitised report which was completely and utterly deceptive. That is what the member for Araluen said yesterday and it is recorded in Hansard. You can ask me many times to withdraw it but I will not because it is written down and will stay there for a long time - forever.
This committee met with members of the public in Darwin and Alice Springs, met with carers, met with public servants outside the department and, as stated in the report, was impressed with the frank comments of all people involved. There are quite a few things here for the department and the government - any government - to learn. At the end of the day, the committee commented the government is on track, has implemented all the recommendations, and the committee believes this is the way to go to resolve the issues with child protection.
We made a commitment to change the child protection system. The child protection system was in crisis. It was in crisis over the past 27 or 37 years, and that has been identified by the report, The State of Denial, which condemned …
Mrs Lambley: What about the Ombudsman’s report?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: I will come to that. … the last 10 years of the CLP government. The most damning – I read many quotes from that report; however, it says the then Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services: ‘Territory Health is not meeting its obligations as prescribed under the Northern Territory Community Welfare Act 1983’. To put it simply, it walked away from its obligations to protect children in the Northern Territory. I would like to personally thank the member for Araluen, who brought this report to my attention in one of the comments she made. I looked at it and nearly fell off my chair. How strong it was, how little the CLP government of the day …
Mrs Lambley: It is a pity we cannot thank you for changing …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: How little the then CLP government did for children! Our government not only says it will support children - I have said to members opposite that this is not a job for a single government. This is not a job for a government of any particular political persuasion. This is a matter for our community as a whole, and I would be pleased to work with members opposite. There are problems; however, instead of highlighting the problems let us highlight the possible solutions. Your professional background is in welfare; you should be able to offer solutions which probably …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: You can make suggestions and we can work together to find solutions. Not all the things we suggest are perfect or good. We have to try to find the best solution to ensure children in the Territory not only feel safe, they are safe.
We have found that while we have a parallel health system in the Territory - Indigenous controlled medical services never had anything to do with Children and Families. We cannot claim we know everything about Indigenous families. There are different cultural issues and different ways of doing business. The tyranny of distance plays a significant role and we had to have something to focus on Indigenous families, Indigenous children and Indigenous issues.
That is why we are funding AMSANT to establish a new Aboriginal child, youth and family peak body. We are not establishing a different system; we are establishing a system to work with the Department of Children and Families the same way the Indigenous medical services work together with the Health department to provide the best services to people living outside the urban centres, outside the northern suburbs. There are ongoing difficulties in recruiting and retaining people and we have put in place solutions to recruit people and ensure they stay, especially in areas outside Darwin, by providing incentives in salary, training and holidays. We want to bring people into the system.
We have a significant number of Indigenous kids coming to our attention. We try to train Indigenous people to become child protection workers like in Queensland, and are adopting that training program in order to succeed. It is important, if we are going to address issues with children, that we understand the system well, the culture and how Indigenous families function. It is important the department of children’s services should not be the little brother of a big organisation; it should be a separate department. We will establish a separate department in its own right with its own chief executive officer who has responsibilities and rights; not a little brother to another department.
There are many things to do. It is not going to happen today; it is going to happen in the next five to 10 years. The problem with children’s services is we have to address an increasing number of notifications with the number of staff we have currently. We have difficulties, like other states, in recruiting new people. It is a difficult profession. People can work there for two years and burn out. I have friends working in the system and some can only last two years. It is like being a nurse in a war zone. You can take so much then you have to get out in order to survive physically and psychologically. I acknowledge that there are difficulties.
I turn to the Ombudsman’s report. The Ombudsman commenced her report in November 2009 and examined a number of cases - 17 or 18 kids, which were historical cases. She referred to a number of issues identified by the board of inquiry. We now have two reports: the board of inquiry report and the Ombudsman’s report. If you look at them in parallel, you find many similarities. The Ombudsman’s report told us what we decided to do was the right thing because she referred to issues identified by the board of inquiry - the issues we decided we have to address head on, no ifs and buts. It is not only money; it is changing the culture in the department, changing the way we do our job, and identifying some of the bottlenecks and issues.
One of the things you mentioned was how to notify the authorities - by fax, e-mail or telephone? Personally, receiving an e-mail is good; however, if I want information I pick up the telephone and talk to someone - probably a combination of the three, although fax is a little old-fashioned nowadays; a combination of e-mail and person to person would be the best solution.
With regard to the timing of the Ombudsman’s report, on 29 June I received a draft report from the Ombudsman. Looking at the report, a number of issues came to my attention. One was identifying the children, the other was my suspicion I was not the right minister to present the report, and the third was natural justice. We sought legal advice from the Solicitor-General and it was confirmed section 301 of the Care and Protection of Children Act did not apply to the Ombudsman’s report. However, it created the issue of identifying children, especially in a small community like ours. The other thing that came to my attention was I was not the right minister under the Administrative Arrangements Order to present the report
The third issue was natural justice. When you name a public servant in a report you should give that person the opportunity to respond. I wrote to the Ombudsman advising her of the finding and, very kindly, the Ombudsman admitted it was an oversight on her behalf. She gave it to me rather than the Chief Minister, who is the minister responsible. She then forwarded the report to the Chief Minister who then, under the Administrative Arrangements Order, has to present it to parliament within 60 days. There was no attempt by me to hide the report. It always had to be presented to parliament, but it had to be done in the proper way.
With regard to the issue of the children, the department advised me that, because of the way the children were identified in the report, it would create problems. I asked the Ombudsman if we could provide a copy of the report to the Children’s Commissioner. She said she could not because it had to be presented to the minister, who then had to table it in parliament. Only the minister could provide it to the Children’s Commissioner. The Chief Minister forwarded a copy of the report to the Children’s Commissioner. Yes, the process can be cumbersome; however, it has to be done a certain way to fulfil the legal obligations of ministers, the Chief Minister and the Ombudsman. The report was tabled in parliament yesterday.
Our system has not been perfect for many years. It has problems; it was in crisis and, in some areas, it did not work at all. The State of Denial identified from 1991 to 2001 there was a complete breakdown of the system, especially outside urban communities, and that was inherited by this government. As Alyssa Betts says in her article: we were left holding the baby. However, I made a commitment on October 2010, when I stood next to the Chief Minister presenting the report of the board of inquiry, to fix the system. The system was broken and we are building it from the bottom up to ensure children in the Territory will not only feel safe, they will be safe.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I will start by saying this is not the first time, and it will not be the last time – when we look at all of the reports tabled in this House, we have to have an understanding of where we are travelling and that we are dealing with vulnerable children. We are talking about and dealing with the future generation of the place we all love and enjoy; the Northern Territory.
The Ombudsman’s report is a real indictment, not just on all of us in this House, but past governments and us as Territorians, that we failed these children. I thank the frontline staff of Family and Community Services. I said in estimates in front of the minister: ‘When you sit at Kentucky Fried Chicken and see people like Mitch, Vicky, and Fraser picking up these children and taking them home, you can see the commitment these people have for looking after these children’.
You have to look at these reports in context. Minister, I looked at a small report from the committee you appointed. It addresses the recommendations of the inquiry, but it does not mean we overlook this massive Ombudsman’s report and say we will not deal with it because it happened in the past. She is talking about things that happened in the past. We cannot do that because we have to be committed to all those people who gave evidence to the Ombudsman about what they saw as failures of the department; the system that was failing black or white children of the Territory. There might be only 2%, 5% or 10% of non-Indigenous kids in the care of the CEO. There is a higher number of Indigenous kids in the care of the CEO. This is a real indictment on all of us in this House.
When we debate this type of issue we need to show respect and listen to each other. What I heard when the Deputy Speaker used the gavel does not show you speak with passion and care for these children if that is the rabble we have to accept when dealing with serious issues pertaining to our children of the Northern Territory.
I take this opportunity to talk about the frontline staff because I have dealt with many of them, not just at Kentucky Fried Chicken, but with a case where my niece’s children were involved. We used two cars - my own vehicle plus Family and Community Services - to take these children to communities. It is about interacting with each other and helping each other out, because it is not just the problem of the Northern Territory government. One day you will be on that side and the blame will be put on you. There has to be a real, conscious decision made by all of us that when we are addressing these issues, we talk on the rights of the child, the violation of the child, and not blame people. We are all to blame in this - every single one of us sitting in this House has had the opportunity. That side of the House had it for 27 years, and that side of the House had it for 10 years. The blame game will continue; however, when dealing with our vulnerable children we should not play the blame game; we should read the reports.
I know several people on the committee and they are very professional people. Terry Murphy dealt with the Gordon inquiry in Western Australia, the largest jurisdiction to have an inquiry. He is a fantastic person to have on the committee and will get us all focused on making the system better. That is what we are all about, making the system better for the children.
How can we have a system our children are not suffering and dying under? I will not talk about any recent deaths because those families are close to me and the member for Stuart. It would not be right for me to talk about that. It is about us being focused on the issues and helping whoever is in government to make the system better. If you look at these reports - I know they are trying. I would be the first one to be critical of something I knew was not working because I am there on the ground. I have recently returned from a place where I saw two children placed back in the care of their family. I sat there for several days and thought: ‘Oh, my God, these children do not understand language’, but they are learning. The little girl said to me: ‘Aunty Alison, I know what palkala means now’. I said, ‘What does it mean?’ She said, ‘Get up’, and I said, ‘You are right’, so she is learning.
We have to put these children back into the care of their families, but we have to ensure we watch them; that the transition into their family is secure, that we watch the journey between the department and returning to the community because it is going to be very hard for them growing up with non-Indigenous families to then be in an environment that is totally different and with language barriers. This transition, from all these recommendations, is to ensure the first priority is for the safety of the child but uniting those children with their families and their communities.
The minister has acknowledged this previously, we do not want to see a different system for black kids; we want a system for children. First and foremost, our primary responsibility has to be for the safety of the child. We have to ensure the child, when it transitions from the department and the care of the CEO back to the community and family, has a safe journey because, at the end of the day, I look at FACS workers as authors. They are the authors writing a book about those children’s lives. Do not forget that one day those children will return to look at their file. They will come back when they are 18 or 19 and say: ‘Can I look at my journey, where I come from?’ As authors, and as politicians standing inside this House, we have to be very careful and sensitive to the things we say and do when dealing with vulnerable children. These children have been through all types of grief, and because of the grief and hurt they have been through no one wants to see them - that is in the care of the CEO. The ultimate goal has to be we transition these children back into their communities with their parents, or their next of kin, but not in a manner that is hurtful or selfish, or not thinking what situation we might be putting that person in.
There has to be thorough investigation and interaction between the department, the community and the people who will be looking after these children - background checks on people ensuring they have a good home life, are not drinking, not on ganja, and that there is a loving, caring family and a loving, caring community waiting for that child. That has to be the ultimate goal for any of us who debate these issues in this House.
The recommendations of the ministerial appointed committee are telling us the inquiry’s recommendations are heading on the right path; it is focusing on what the inquiry spoke about. We will see differences but, as the minister said, we will not see the differences tomorrow. Our expectation should be to see small changes happen quickly - changes happen later on.
I am not excluding or saying to anyone we should ignore or throw the Ombudsman’s report out. It is an indictment on us in this House and we have to take into consideration, not the political position of the Ombudsman, but look at the people who reported the concerns they had with the department and ensure we, on behalf of those people, address those issues, because that is serious.
If we exclude this saying it happened, we are not going to look at it, we are saying to these people: ‘We do not believe what you said. What you said to the department does not matter’. We cannot do that. We have to keep in mind all those people who went to the Ombudsman with their complaints about secure undertakings for the children. If we do not do that, we are in serious strife. Those people will come back, and I do not want to be in a position where I have to defend myself outside and tell someone we threw away the Ombudsman’s report and that person say: ‘I was one of the people who reported what was happening in the department to the Ombudsman’.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the people who went to the Ombudsman, we have to take this report seriously and look at some of the things said.
Mr ELFERINK: (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Araluen for bringing this forward. I thank the minister for his response, and the member for Macdonnell for her response. Perhaps I show an affinity not many other members of this House share with the member for Macdonnell, with the exception of the member herself. In the eight years I spent in the bush in Central Australia, I was aware of many of the issues she spoke about.
I was angst-ridden to hear the minister say the life span of a childcare worker was about two years and compared a childcare worker in the Northern Territory to a nurse working in a war zone. In spite of the many reports we have heard, it is still saddening to hear childcare workers are expected to have an expiry date attached to them from battle fatigue. That is frustrating to listen to.
Part of my criticism in relation to the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee is because it reflects an attitude in the intelligentsia of this country which has been around since the time of settlement. It is more subtle than it used to be but is, nevertheless, pronounced. I do not want to walk on eggshells around Professor Vimpani, Dr Silburn, Mr Murphy, Mr Hytten, or Ms Neihus, or any of the members of the committee when they, with approval, cast their eyes on the type of judgments they do. Any person, in any field, should not be beyond criticism and when they err, we in this House should not be ashamed to point that out to them.
One of the threads we heard in the Growing them strong, together report - the member for Fong Lim has spoken about this and I agree, we are attempting to Aboriginalise this issue. Yes, the overwhelming number of kids in the care and protection of the department are of Aboriginal descent. My response to that is: ‘So what?’ The member for Macdonnell attends to those issues in her comments when she says this affects black kids and white kids and is not about placing them in black or white homes; it is about placing them in loving homes.
I become irritated when the authors of the Growing them strong, together report decide there is some type of racial quality to love; some racial quality to liberty and some racial quality to the protection a community deserves. This point was being made by the member for Braitling when he accused the government of racist policies - the federal government does it too. We have an Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
Why do we not have descendants of the original owners of the Northern Territory land rights act? That would be more accurate than an Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which has a definition of who is an Aboriginal person. This stuff is eugenics; it comes from the 1930s. This is the hokum from phrenology. For goodness sake, we should be beyond this racist argument we keep perpetrating. It is threaded in not only the observations, but the solutions of the Growing them strong, together report. Now the government is committed to taking each and every one of those solutions on board, it has committed to, essentially, a racist response. It is supported by what I would call unintended but nevertheless racist intelligentsia. That is where we get ridiculous comments about comparing Aboriginal people’s injury rates to Neolithic Britons and Iron Age Italians.
Surely, the quality of liberty is not restricted to a racial group. It is liberty we should be protecting in these circumstances; the liberty of children to enjoy an unmolested childhood regardless of who they are. However, this bigotry we find in these instruments resonates throughout this government’s response. Yes, a higher proportion of Aboriginal children suffer abuse. There will be a percentage somewhere in a report - 20% of Aboriginal kids will be abused whereas in the white community it will be 5% or whatever. We then focus on Aboriginal kids. Here is a thought: 100% of abused children are abused. Perhaps we should be looking at policies that deal with abused children.
This government tries, I suspect genuinely, to deal with these issues but sees it as a political issue. Dealing with political issues gets us into the race argument. Dealing with political issues sees people like Sue Mansfield investigated by government for her conduct. It is a political response. I sat in front of Clare Gardiner-Barnes and the minister and was told people should feel empowered to come forward and speak out when they see wrong. I thought that was a breath of fresh air. You could imagine my disappointment and, needless to say, the disappointment of Sue Mansfield, when she discovered she was being investigated. There is an environment of fear inside the department.
I suspect much of the stress suffered by the frontline workers is not from the work they do. I suspect the majority of stress frontline workers suffer is because of the level of micromanagement brought to bear because of frightened ministers and senior public servants trying their hardest to ensure they control what is happening. What is happening is not the protection of children; it is ensuring the right messages go out. That, unfortunately, is what this is about: getting the right message out.
The minister said: ‘What are the fixes? You make some suggestion about fixes’. The minister has, on repeated occasions, made the simple assertion that this is no longer a problem for the child welfare department, it is a whole-of-community response. If that is true, the government should take a whole-of-community response attitude and make all the changes necessary to bring about an environment of better health for families. This does not mean government gets involved in families. In fact, I argue the primary role, in some instances, is for government to step away.
Here is a fix. Get jobs happening in the remote communities of the Territory where you have higher levels of abuse and neglect. How do you do that? Look at the structures in place. There is a direct link between the failure of the Aboriginal Lands Rights Act to generate wealth and jobs and child protection. Let us acknowledge that. To that end, I would like the Northern Territory government to ask the federal government for the patriation of the Lands Rights Act to the Northern Territory - not to take Aboriginal land away, but at least allow Aboriginal land to generate wealth. Will that fix all child abuse and neglect? No, but it will substantially reduce it if those things occur.
I would prefer to see the levels of child abuse and neglect in the remote parts of the Northern Territory reflect our major centres for no other reason than it would be an improvement. I will echo the words of Galarrwuy Yunupingu - do something about welfare. Welfare is a toxin. Our best intention to help people living in remote parts of the Territory, even in our major centres, is to give them money. Giving money has killed more people in the Northern Territory than all other policies put together pertaining to Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people die in higher rates than they have ever done, even during times of the most extreme policies which sought to limit their future. There is a thought.
I am aware this jurisdiction cannot do anything about welfare; however, it can start knocking on the door in Canberra. If you are worried about the race-based component simply say: ‘We want a compulsory work-for-the-dole scheme in the Northern Territory’ - full stop - whether it is in Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Yuendumu or Millingimbi - not with a view to punishing these people but, for God’s sake, getting them back into jobs. Whilst I have my differences with the member for Nelson, I agree with him: get people working. The minister for Corrections says in his policy statements we have to get people working; it is all about getting people working. Hallelujah!
Why do we not say the welfare system operating in this jurisdiction should be targeted at getting people to work? If you want to protect children, give the people around those children something to do. It does not matter what colour they are. From that, hopefully, you will get respect for liberty so people will see value in their lives and, consequently, project that respect for value in their lives to the values in other people’s lives, including their children. Also, respect for something as simple as property will go a long way to addressing the issues that keep occurring.
The minister is right: it is beyond the capacity of government to fix this problem. It was beyond the capacity of the former government and, in spite of the fluffing around with numbers, there is no doubt this government is spending more with negligible results at best. Government cannot tell people how to live their lives. All we can do is create an environment in which people can create lives for themselves. If we allow that environment to flourish in such a way that people are occupied with professions, jobs, or other such labours, we can create an environment which will protect children more effectively. This will not be achieved by government running a nanny state; it will not be achieved by government at the helm steering the ship expecting all crew members to play the game. It will never be completely achieved, but it will be achieved by people having the rights and liberties to protect themselves and to earn and gain respect for themselves and, consequently, other people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, any government that talks about child protection without talking about jobs, without talking about rights and liberties, without talking about the removal of welfare, is not talking about a program that will successfully attend to the issues these people face. Let us get rid of the nanny state. Let us make people responsible for themselves so they can enjoy the fruits of their labours and, hopefully, through that process, I would expect children would be far more treasured, respected and valued than they are under the current government’s policy, both in the Territory and federally.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support my parliamentary colleague, the member for Casuarina, who has updated this House on the substantial work the Henderson government has undertaken to build the new approach to child protection which was envisaged by the board of inquiry. As the member for Casuarina described, the Henderson government’s response to the board of inquiry and its recommendations has built on the work this government has already done to boost the care and protection of children, and to ensure we have the best possible system in place involving everybody for our important asset, our children.
When we came to government in 2001, child protection in the Northern Territory government was severely neglected. The child protection budget for the Northern Territory was a meagre $7m. Under the Henderson Labor government, the current 2011-12 budget stands at $182m. To put that into perspective, child protection services have been expanded by this government to include family support services, youth services, out of home care services, and homelessness. We have also created the position of the Children’s Commissioner for the first time in the Northern Territory. It was the Labor government which called for the most comprehensive inquiry into the Northern Territory’s child protection system, the board of inquiry. The board of inquiry was a culmination of the work of Territory Labor over the last decade.
In October 2009, in my role as then Minister for Child Protection, I announced a review of the notification systems within NT Families and Children. As I have said in this House before, it was clear to me, particularly after talking to medical professionals and the AMA, that we had reached a tipping point. I spoke to the Chief Minister about the need for a broad-ranging public inquiry into the Northern Territory’s child protection system. Those people on the board of inquiry, Howard Bath, Muriel Bamblett and Dr Rob Roseby have done significant work across the Northern Territory. They reported in their recommendations a number of things which centred largely on supporting our families across the Northern Territory, not only in Darwin and Alice Springs, but across the regions.
The board of inquiry has given the Henderson government a clear and ongoing focus to work in partnership with the community to build a new child protection and family support system over the next five years. The recommendations arising from the inquiry have enabled us to reshape the system so every child and family in need will have access to support, and that kids at risk are properly identified and cared for.
The inquiry’s report and recommendations present, as the member for Macdonnell said, each of us in the Northern Territory parliament, right across the community of the Northern Territory, parents, families, all levels of government, and the non-government sector, with a new opportunity to refocus, improve, and strengthen the Northern Territory child protection system.
Importantly, the Henderson government is committed to building local leadership and maximising opportunities for all Territorians to build strong families. We recognise a long-term sustained commitment and strong partnership between the government and Indigenous people is essential to future success. That is why it is vital the board of inquiry looked at the delivery of child protection services in regional and remote areas as part of the development of A Working Future. As a minister responsible for A Working Future reforms, it is important we are building strong links between the future of our children and our vision of A Working Future for Territorians living across our regions. I am pleased to report to this House that the local implementation plans, or LIPs, for our growth towns and their service regions include early childhood, including child protection as one of the key building blocks. The LIPs set out the priorities for each community and include targets, actions, success measures, and time lines for achieving these priorities. They are developed through close consultation between government and a local reference group in each of these towns.
Across the Territory growth towns, LIPs for all 15 remote service delivery national partnership agreement priority sites have been endorsed by the Northern Territory government and Australian government and are being implemented. Thirteen of the 15 LIPs have been signed by all stakeholders. The Northern Territory government is progressing developing LIPs for the remaining six Territory growth towns: Papunya, Ali Curung, Elliott, Daguragu, Kalkaringi, Borroloola, and Ramingining. Each of the LIPs contains a range of actions relating to early childhood development and the safety and protection of children. I would like to report to the House some of these examples: Families as First Teachers program being delivered in all local implementation plans; establishment of early childhood coordinators in all LIPs; universal access to preschool for every child in the year before full-time school is identified in all LIPs; minimum service standards for child protection and related services will be developed in all remote service delivery sites; and delivering Certificate III in Community Services in the workplace through the Families as First Teachers program. The development of child and family centres has been identified as an action in LIPs for five communities: Gunbalanya, Hermannsburg, Maningrida, Ngukurr, and Yuendumu.
Other important initiatives contained in some of these LIPs include establishment of a parents committee, including representatives from Health; building the Remote Early Childhood Workforce Pilot project to provide children’s services training for childcare staff, VET in schools, and school-based apprentices for secondary students; making early childhood health checks and vaccinations available at the child and family centre; establishing a community education program around the importance of physical and mental health in early childhood learning; developing and implementing an education program on keeping healthy while pregnant; local people being offered training and employment to deliver parenting programs for young mothers and fathers; education and support programs to reduce smoking, drinking, and poor nutrition during pregnancy; delivering pre-natal nutrition and healthy baby programs; supporting workforce development of local staff to work in and run the new children and family centre; continue the Strong Women, Strong Babies, Strong Culture program to support young mothers parenting education; and building parents’ capacity to engage in their children’s education through community engagement workshops delivered through the Parental and Community Engagement Program.
What is so important about these initiatives is they are underpinned by an understanding that a child does not develop independently of the community in which it lives. I am pleased to report to this House there is close strategic and operational coordination between all levels of government in relation to implementing the outcomes of the board of inquiry, particularly between the service delivery coordination unit within the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, the Department of Education and Training, and the Department of Children and Families. This coordination is facilitated through the remote service delivery board of management which has established an integrated family services working group.
A very important issue addressed by the board of inquiry was how to build and employ the NGO sector in this important work, including Indigenous leadership and advice, and designing and delivering improved family support and appropriate early intervention services. The board of inquiry noted the crucial importance of culturally competent service delivery. The Henderson government has embraced this challenge by establishing the new Aboriginal Child Youth and Families peak body and the appointment of the first chief executive of that peak body, Josie Crawshaw. This new peak body under the leadership of Josie Crawshaw, with two new Aboriginal childcare agencies, will make important and enduring contributions to better family support and child protection outcomes. Ms Crawshaw’s appointment has been welcomed by the CEO of the Secretariat of the National Aboriginal Islander Child Care (SNAICC), Frank Hytten, who hailed Josie’s appointment as:
- An important step forward for Aboriginal children and families of the NT in developing appropriately resourced community based and controlled services.
Natalie Hunter, member of the Darwin reference group for Children, Youth and Families and former SNAICC executive member has also welcomed the appointment of Josie Crawshaw stating:
- Josie has a strong history standing up for Aboriginal people, including in her work as an ATSIC commissioner. The reference group is strongly supportive of Josie’s appointment and looks forward
to working with her. Let the work begin to address our children, youth and families issues on the ground.
The peak body will be independent and focus on ensuring government children, youth and family services are culturally appropriate. The peak body will also oversee the establishment of the two new Aboriginal and Islander childcare agencies in Darwin and Alice Springs.
The Henderson Labor government has funded AMSANT to establish the peak body. This mirrors the role of AMSANT’s sister organisation, the Queensland Aboriginal Islander Health Council which auspiced the establishment of a Queensland Aboriginal community control child protection agency for a number of years as a transition to becoming the new peak agency. AMSANT’s clear position is the peak agency under development will not be a service provider. That will be the task of the two new Aboriginal community control childcare agencies. The role of the peak body will provide Aboriginal representation on the issues of child protection, youth and families in the Northern Territory based on a strong coverage of urban, rural and remote communities. It will develop evidence-based policy positions on the issues of child protection, youth and families in the Northern Territory, including monitoring legislation and regulations, continuous quality improvement, accreditation, data collection and analysis, information technology and workforce development.
The peak body will also act as an advocate for the rights of child protection, youth and families in the Northern Territory and conduct and commission research on child protection. Local regional reference groups will be formed across the Territory to provide local leadership and input to the development of the peak agency and the framework for the Aboriginal childcare agencies in Darwin and Alice Springs. This approach is critical to ensure localised analysis of key issues impacting on Aboriginal children, families and young people.
The new peak body is being established in direct response to the recommendations from the expert board of inquiry, Dr Howard Bath, Professor Muriel Bamblett and Dr Rob Roseby. The board of inquiry recommended the Northern Territory government fund the development, establishment and ongoing work of an Aboriginal peak body on child and family safety and wellbeing and child protection. This peak body would support the process of the development of Aboriginal child and family wellbeing and safety and child protection agencies. Such Aboriginal childcare agency or agencies would be developed in stages and such an agency or agencies would be funded by government with a major role in child safety and wellbeing, with consultation to determine how the Aboriginal community should be represented.
The board of inquiry spelt out the need for an Aboriginal-controlled agency or agencies with a major role in child wellbeing, family wellbeing and child protection was absolutely paramount. In particular, the board of inquiry stipulated reform of the system protecting children in the Northern Territory must recognise the Aboriginal child placement principle and involve a fundamental change in the way child protection and family support services involve and interact with Aboriginal people. The board of inquiry also identified a key to creating a safer environment for Aboriginal children is to build the capacity of the Aboriginal community to deal with its own issues. It is likely an Aboriginal-controlled agency will be better able than government to employ and retain Aboriginal staff. The board highlighted for Aboriginal children requiring placement in out-of-home care there are not enough Aboriginal family placements available. The view of the board was an Aboriginal-controlled service is likely to be better able to recruit suitable carers and retain their services than a government department as it is more likely to build engagement and trust by way of better understanding this client group.
Madam Speaker, I conclude by reflecting on the National Aboriginal and Islander Children’s Day event at Jingili Water Gardens, which I had the pleasure of attending on Sunday. The National Aboriginal and Islander Children’s Day is celebrated on 4 August each year. This year, the theme was From small to big: growing stronger every day. This national day of celebration was first observed by SNAICC in 1988, and each year the theme for the National Aboriginal and Islander Children’s Day has highlighted a significant issue, concern, or hope for the year. From small to big: growing stronger every day encapsulates the Henderson government’s deep and long-term commitment to supporting Territorians to build strong families and sustain strong and safe communities for our children, continuing to build on the work this government has already done to boost the care and protection of children ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this matter of public importance brought on by the member for Araluen; that the Northern Territory government needs to answer serious questions regarding the oversight of children in care and protection of the CEO of the Department of Children and Families. ‘Oversight’ is an interesting word when used in a particular context. I am unsure whether it means overlooked because that is appropriate, or is the ‘oversight’ as in you oversee it. It is a very interesting bureaucratic word. In this case it is more appropriate you have overlooked it. The evidence is damning and clear: the Northern Territory government has overlooked the care and protection of children and the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families is, ultimately, responsible according to the minister, who has buck-passed it.
I agree with the member for Araluen: a CEO is responsible to the minister; therefore the minister is ultimately responsible. That is our system of government. No matter what the minister would like to say or how far he has distanced himself from this, he is still, ultimately, responsible. Every child in the Northern Territory is the responsibility of the minister no matter how far he would like to distance himself from it. We have seen, time and time again, this government distancing itself from a problem. We have seen it with the members for Johnston and Casuarina. We see, as soon as there is a problem: ‘Let us put something in between us and the problem, therefore, we are not responsible’.
There is no better area of government where Labor has displayed complete neglect of Territorians or issues facing the Northern Territory than in the area of child protection. We see case after case of neglect. It has demonstrated that when it comes to the protection of Territory children, Labor is not up to the job. We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the election of the Labor government and since 2001 there have been five failed child protection ministers, four of whom were sacked because of incompetence. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of child protection, a commitment to child protection or a successful child protection regime.
Over the past 10 years, there have been numerous reviews and inquiries into the Territory’s child protection system. Shall we go through them? We can start in 2007 - I do not have the copy unfortunately; however, that was the big one, the one that started the ball rolling, the Little Children are Sacred report. In November 2007, we saw the Northern Territory Community Services High Risk Audit, otherwise known as the Bath Report. I have the executive summary of the Bath Report of November 2007. Then we have the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission report on investigation of Royal Darwin Hospital’s security arrangements for the protection of children and infants. That was November 2008. This follows the appalling situation where a child was sexually abused in the paediatric ward at Royal Darwin Hospital. It basically spelt the end of the former Minister for Health, the member for Johnston. He would know that very well. He has never quite recovered from that and his credibility remains in tatters as a result.
Then we have the Tolhurst report in June 2009 into the NTFC Intake Service, another damning report into the Northern Territory government’s child protection service. We have one from February 2010, Office of the Children’s Commissioner of the Northern Territory, a report relating to a child protection notification made to Northern Territory Families and Children in respect of Baby B M - another one just three months later. Then we have the Growing them strong, together report essentially commissioned under sustained pressure from the opposition. The government was dragged kicking and screaming to address issues facing child protection and children and families’ matters across the Northern Territory by the Northern Territory opposition. As a result, we have the Growing them strong, together report, another damning report.
Now we have the latest A Life Long Shadow, a report of a partial investigation of the child protection authority by the Ombudsman dated June 2011 - a few months old. The most damning thing is that the culture of cover-up is alive and well. It used to be a clich. The culture of cover-up used to be something you could say about the government if the opposition did not get its way; however, four or five years on you guys are good at it; it has become your mantra. The culture of cover-up, the party that covers things up, the party that is proud of the culture of cover-up.
Let us look at page 22 of the report. I will not read the whole thing; I will cherry pick some of the core bits from this section.
- Reluctance of the department
Initially there was some reluctance on the part of the department and the child protection authority to provide information to me.
The department obtained a legal opinion from a senior counsel at the Victorian Bar. The opinion was to the effect that I had no jurisdiction under the notice I had given to conduct the investigation.
Holy cow!
- In January 2010 I served a notice on the department asking for the production of all the records held by the department relating to the 17 children who had been identified with the investigation notice
as well as the records of their siblings. The request was for medical records as well as child protection records of any notification or contact between any of the 17 children identified or related to them.
The department replied that I did not have jurisdiction to investigate some matters set out in the notice of investigation, that the notice to provide documents was ‘oppressive and invalid’. A copy of a
legal opinion from a senior counsel from Victoria, which the department obtained, was sent to me.
Eventually, the Ombudsman says this not good enough. Under no circumstances in the 21st century in the western world would that be good enough! Thankfully, the minister realised it was not good enough and reluctantly intervened. The department indicated it would not pursue a senior challenge by the Ombudsman to take it to the Supreme Court and realised the situation was not good enough. It realised children were first and foremost and paramount, and their protection is of the utmost importance and a core responsibility of any government of any persuasion in any jurisdiction. The minister reluctantly intervened and indicated he would not pursue a challenge to the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to conduct the investigation.
Furthermore, there was some common sense by the newly appointed CEO of the department of health and families. The Ombudsman pays tribute to him for having some common sense and compassion with regard to the care and protection of children. While I do not agree that the care and protection of children falls squarely in the lap of the CEO, thank goodness it does in this case. If it fell in the lap of any of the five failed ministers, including the current minister, God help the children of the Northern Territory. The current CEO of the department of health and families seems to have a better grip on what is required of him, and what is required of a government when it comes to the care and protection of children than the current minister or the four previous ministers who were sacked because of their incompetence.
Each report highlighted a system in crisis despite promise after promise from the government that the recommendations of each report would be implemented to improve the child protection system. Labor has failed to deliver on these promises. It is abhorrent and a dereliction of the core duty, the fundamental responsibility, we have as adults, parents, legislators, and parliamentarians. The government has failed time and time again.
Madam Speaker, I get the feeling you are about to wind me up. Is that right, or can we continue?
Madam SPEAKER: At 9 pm I will remind you it is 9 pm and you will probably have another two minutes if you wish.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Labor’s performance in government has compromised the care of hundreds of Territory children it has a duty to protect - a fundamental core responsibility. If there is anything we have a core responsibility for, if there is anything in life we are more responsible for, it is the care and protection of children. Is there anything more important than looking after, protecting, caring for, and providing for the children of the Northern Territory?
In 2010 the board of inquiry into the child protection system produced a damning report which showed an almost complete breakdown in child protection and a tsunami of need. I cannot put too fine a point on that: a tsunami of need amongst neglected children in the Territory. Some of the alarming findings contained in that report include …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is now 9 pm. Would you like to have the last few minutes?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, I would, Madam Speaker, three minutes or so to go.
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow that.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you.
One of the findings in that report include the rate of children on care and protection orders in the Northern Territory was the highest across Australia in 2008-09, with 9.2% per 1000 children compared to the national average of 7 per 1000 children. While the proportion of notifications that have resulted in an investigation has increased over threefold, the total number of substantiations appears to have changed little across the years 2003-04 to 2009-10.
There is very little change at all during the life of this government which is hardly surprising with the high churn of child protection ministers we have seen in the last 10 years - five ministers, four of whom had been sacked and I would not be surprised if the current minister is well on his way with some of the stuff he has been presiding over. His stewardship on this issue has been appalling. He does not know his facts; he gets them wrong. The member for Araluen highlighted a number of those today. He blames people for not attending meetings. That is his defence. How pathetic! What is important here? Is it the children of the Northern Territory or the member for Araluen not attending a meeting?
He mentions committee members who are not even on the committee - Donna Ah Chee and Charlie King. They have not been on the committee for some time. There is a vacancy so why not appoint the Ombudsman? Madam Speaker, he is not sure; he is not across the facts. It makes for some good political argy-bargy, but the ones really suffering are the kids of the Northern Territory.
As probably the newest parent in this House, it drives your awareness of how important this issue is. It makes me sick in the stomach when I read some of these things - five-year-old kid being abused and being run over. It is disgraceful! This government has failed. I say to every parent in the Northern Territory: you should hold grave concerns about the ability of the Northern Territory government to care and protect your children under the most vulnerable circumstances.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is now after 9 pm. Pursuant to Standing Order 41A, I propose that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House about the actions this government has taken to support community efforts to encourage more childcare places in Alice Springs. The availability of good quality childcare is vital to the development of children and families. It is something we value as government, and I personally value highly.
As a working family with, at one stage, two kids in care, I know how difficult it can be to access quality care at times. There are also affordability issues as well. My wife has much experience working in the area of school readiness. The importance of getting kids ready for school and valuing going to school cannot be underestimated. It is about ensuring our little kids not only get the vital learning foundation before they go to school, but also the physical and emotional wellbeing for kids and families, setting them up for a healthy and happy future. Getting this important early childhood area right might not have immediate payoffs, but it is valuable long term and something we have to be committed to getting right.
I am committed, as a parent, to getting it right and I am also committed, as a committee representative in Alice Springs, to ensuring we live it well. I also acknowledge the efforts the member for Araluen is putting into this issue for Alice Springs. It is great to have a bipartisan approach to improving the situation for families in our town.
As a result of an initial meeting in June called to address the shortage of childcare places in Alice Springs, my colleague, the member for Johnston, the Education minister, and I wrote to the federal minister, Kate Ellis, urging her to support initiatives to address the shortage of childcare places in Alice Springs especially in the acute need area of places for 0 to 3-year-olds. As member for Stuart, I have lobbied hard to improve childcare services in my electorate, particularly in places like Yuendumu and Mataranka. The Northern Territory government is active in the area of early childhood. We must remember the responsibility for providing more childcare places rests with the federal government. The Northern Territory government is responsible for licensing and regulating, and ensuring our facilities are safe and top quality as our kids deserve.
We are the only government in Australia to provide a childcare subsidy to licensed childcare centres to help keep the costs down for families. We also support the training and development of childcare workers, with the department of Education developing a workforce plan for early childhood. It is an area where we can support and grow our own from local training opportunities. In recognition of the importance of early childhood development, the Northern Territory government is developing an early childhood plan with input from a number of agencies.
At a meeting I attended on the issues in Alice Springs last week, some great ideas and really innovative approaches were put forward to solving this critical issue. Going forward, an action plan is being developed for the group looking at a range of options such as using existing infrastructure, planning for potential sites for childcare centres, workforce reform, and other issues. The input from people such as Margaret Harrison from Congress Child Care, Tony and Alison Haggart from Lil’Ants, Erica Johanssen from Family Day Care Centre, Kerry Espey from Larapinta Preschool, representatives from CDU, Leon Trippe from the town council, and representatives from the Northern Territory and Commonwealth government agencies was invaluable. Input from those at the first meeting, such as Eto Lee from Braitling Neighbourhood Centre, Mariann Reu from Bradshaw Preschool, Michele Thompson from the Community Toy Library, Sharon Watson from Gap Community Child Care, Jenny Cooper from Gillen Preschool, and Navin, Ray and Linda from the YMCA should also be noted and congratulated. The efforts of the many parents to address this issue in such a constructive way must also be applauded - people such as Emma Haskin and many others. I am pleased to see the community coming together to find a way forward to deal with this critical issue, and I fully support those efforts. The next meeting to hear back from the action group will be on 12 October.
Turning to my electorate of Stuart, I pay tribute to a wonderful Pine Creek local, John (Robbo) Robertson. Sadly, John Robertson passed away in Brisbane on 13 May this year. At John (Robbo) Robertson’s memorial service held in Pine Creek on 4 June, he was described as the glue that held Pine Creek together. If there was a community event or someone in need, Mr Robertson was not far away. At his memorial service, he was awarded a 25-year service medal for his tireless work as a volunteer with the Fire and Emergency Rescue group in the Pine Creek area. Robbo worked for 15 years on the Pine Creek Council. He was also President of the Pine Creek Turf Club and instrumental in the forming of a new race track at Pussy Cat Flats.
Over the years, Robbo received many community awards, including Citizen of the Year, Local Hero, and the Pride of Australia True Blue Aussie Award. His face will be sadly missed from every Pine Creek community event where he generously volunteered his time, including Clean Up Australia Day, Anzac Day, Territory Day, the school fete, the Gold Rush Festival, golf tournaments and, of course, the Pine Creek Races.
My sincere condolences go to Robbo’s wife, Booma Chaekkratok, daughter Julie and four sons, Scott, Anthony, Paul and Chris, and their extended families.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to Paul Vanderleur formerly of Camfield Station in the VRD who passed away on 18 June in Brisbane. While I never met Mr Vanderleur, I acknowledge the significant contribution he made to the Northern Territory pastoral industry. The young Paul Vanderleur was sent to the VRD by his father as a 19-year-old, to help establish a new cattle station, Camfield. Conditions were harsh in the 1950s, with none of the infrastructure we see there today. It started from scratch with an enormous amount of work to do in developing what was to become a top working cattle station.
Soon after the Camfield lease was obtained, they began a number of small business ventures to provide working capital: Mataranka Station, a grazing licence for Buffalo Springs near Timber Creek, a depot, and a butcher’s shop in Katherine.
Paul married Betty, who had come to Katherine as a nurse, on 19 April 1958. They took over as managers of Camfield Station. They had three children, Anne, Patricia, and Paul Jnr. Paul worked with the pastoral industry lobby groups to improve a range of issues affecting the pastoral industry. In 1977, Camfield was sold and, by that time, the property was very well developed and included a homestead. After the sale, Betty and Paul moved to Katherine. Paul became a pastoral inspector for Hooker Investments Corporation, overseeing a number of stations in the VRD. In 1984, Peter Sherman offered Paul a position in the same capacity when he purchased VRD. In October 1989, VRD was bought by Robert Holmes Court’s Heytesbury Pastoral Company, and again Paul shared his experience and knowledge until the time came to leave Katherine and retire in Brisbane.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my condolences to Paul’s wife, Betty, and their family on the loss of a husband, father, and a man who will be remembered as a Territory pioneer.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I highlight an issue which confronts the rural area. While we have many serious issues associated with planning, particularly the rural village concept, traffic management issues, dogs, and hooning, this is important and involves the people of Palmerston who are dumping their rubbish in the rural area.
The Litchfield Council operates three main waste facilities or, as I like to call them, rubbish dumps, in Howard Springs, Humpty Doo and Berry Springs. In regard to the Howard Springs dump, which I frequent on a regular basis, as do many other Litchfield council ratepayers …
Mr Wood: Transfer station.
Ms PURICK: I will take up that interjection, transfer station. I like to call them rubbish dumps.
Over the last few months, I have been approached by many constituents who are fed up with the Palmerston people they believe are dumping their rubbish at the Howard Springs rubbish dump. I will explain how and why.
Why they would want to dump their townie rubbish at the Howard Springs dump beats me, as they have a perfectly good rubbish dump at the bottom of Palmerston. However, the tonnage of rubbish increases astronomically when security guards are taken away from the centre. In fact, the tonnage of rubbish received at Howard Springs goes up by 30% when security is taken away from Howard Springs, and that does not include green waste. Everyone knows rural people use all their green waste for all manner of things, including animal feed or mulch, and sometimes decorations, so the increase in green waste is not from the rural area.
Annual tonnage of rubbish at the Howard Springs Waste Transfer facility, aka rubbish dump, is around 4724 tonnes per year. Put an increase of 30% on that and it equals an extra 1417 tonnes of rubbish that has to be managed and removed, with the extra cost being borne by the Litchfield Council and ultimately passed on to ratepayers. They are the people who are not happy and have come to me. The ratepayers of Litchfield Council are not happy and have expressed their views to me in no uncertain terms.
There is no other explanation I can find, or my constituents can find, as to where the extra 30% of rubbish is coming from. The only place it could come from is the eastern side of Palmerston as the Howard Springs rubbish dump is much closer than the Archer rubbish dump on the Elizabeth River part of Palmerston.
I say to the good people of Palmerston, I know you think the rural area is your back yard, but it is not. You are welcome to visit the wonderful attractions the rural area has to offer, but leave them how you find them. We ask you to not go hooning on our roads, do not abandon unwanted and problem dogs in the rural area, and do not use our rubbish dumps. You have your own facilities, please use them.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will let the Palmerston members defend their constituents in a moment. I would like to speak this evening about the achievements of my government in the Central Australia and Barkly regions.
First, Alice Springs is the site of Australia’s largest sun-tracking solar farm, and will provide the Alice Springs community with the opportunity to purchase GreenPower from a local renewable energy source. Uterne, which means ‘bright sunny day’, a $6.6m installation by construction company SunPower, was officially opened on Thursday, 28 July. The installation will provide power straight to the Alice Springs grid and gives everyone the opportunity to invest in renewable energy by purchasing GreenPower through the Power and Water Corporation. All the electricity generated will be sold to Power and Water for a guaranteed price for the next 20 years. This is a great advancement towards a more sustainable energy future for Alice Springs and the Northern Territory, and the development of solar energy is an area where this government continues to lead the way. It is a great advancement and congratulations to the company SunPower.
Alice Springs Airport is also leading the way in renewable energy with its $2.3m solar power station. This project is a finalist in the United Nations Association of Australia 2011 World Environment Day Awards. It has already won a Power and Water Melaleuca award, and two awards from the Engineers Australian Northern Division 2011 Engineering Excellence Awards. This initiative is the first of its kind in the southern hemisphere and provides the airport with a quarter of its daily energy needs. At peak output, the Alice Springs airport solar power station is reducing carbon emissions by an estimated 470 million tonnes, the equivalent of 70 Alice Springs households over the life of the installation. This project is a part of the successful Alice Solar Cities project, and has also solidified partnerships with the Centre for Appropriate Technology, the federal department of climate change, and solar experts, Ingenero and SolFocus. There are now four major large scale solar projects in Alice Springs: Crowne Plaza, Alice Springs Airport, the Alice Springs Aquatic and Leisure Centre, and now the Uterne power station. To everyone involved in the solar energy industry in Alice Springs, congratulations, this is great news.
Community consultations for the new subdivision of Kilgariff are going well. An inquiry by design process was used to garner community input and follow-up community consultations took place in the last week of July. The first area to be developed has been identified in the north of the new suburb, which will deliver 500 lots over the next 10 years. $10m has already been invested into headworks and sewerage pipes are about to be laid. Community involvement and participation in the entire process has been strong and I continue to support this project. I congratulate Mayor Damien Ryan, and the community reference group that has been working hard to ensure we get this right.
Bush Bus has recently expanded its services in Central Australia and is currently trialling services to a further seven communities in the region. These new services will run twice a week to Wallace Rockhole, Ntaria, Ipolera, Areyonga, Titjikala, and Amoonguna. Due to its close proximity to Alice Springs, Santa Teresa community people have approved a one day round trip arrangement. Proprietors Alan, Tahnee, and Ben Passmore have worked tirelessly to bring these new services to fruition. I commend them on their dedication and hard work in bringing regional transport services into reality. These new runs expand the services already being provided to communities such as Docker River, Kintore, Tennant Creek, Yuendumu, and even into South Australia’s Pitjantjatjara lands. A review will be carried out in six months in consultation with those communities. Congratulations to the Passmore family; it is great to see this business expanding.
Alice Springs local, Jess Johannsen, is the first Territorian to be selected for an Australian netball side. She was named in the Australian 19-and-under team to play against Samoa. Jess has played for the NT 19s for two years and this year represented South Australia after winning a scholarship with the Australian Institute of Sport and moving to Adelaide. Jess was in the Territory Storm squad in the Australian national league in 2011 and played a handful of quarters. Jess, who modestly claims she is still an NT girl, has made an amazing debut onto the national netball circuit. Congratulations Jess, well done.
Local Alice Springs identity, Ben Kelleher, recently competed in Beijing and was triumphant over his bigger Chinese opponent Xu Chao, the reigning champion. Ben, as underdog, won in the second round through a technical knockout. This is in mixed martial arts, and Ben will now defend his WKA South Pacific Belt later this month. Congratulations to Ben.
Alice Springs hosted a successful Indigenous Football Festival in early July. One hundred and sixty eight players comprising 12 teams participated. Matt Bulkeley, head of Game Development from the Football Federation of Australia was in Alice Springs for the festival and said Alice Springs was a great venue and paid tribute to the Alice Springs Town Council. The Territory government provided $250 000 over three years to the FFA for this festival to be held in Alice Springs. Indigenous athletes from all corners of Australia travelled to the Centre to participate. Everyone had fun, and the game of soccer has been further enriched through this festival. Former Australian Socceroo, John Moriarty, patron of the event, enthused: ‘The kids are just so enthusiastic, you can just see the spirit oozing out of them … seeing the passion out there, you can see it in the kids’ eyes’. Congratulations to the organisers, participants and also our Sport minister and Minister for Central Australia. I was with him when we met with Football Federation Australia and locked this tournament in, and the minister has been a great champion of it.
Young Territorian, Jake Scobie, is the Australian Under 16 Brazilian Jiu Jitsu champion after winning a gold medal in the male novice over 70 kg GI event at the Australian-Brazilian Jiu Jitsu competition held in Darwin in early July. Now that Jake is an Australian champion, he is qualified to compete in the world championships if he chooses. Congratulations to Jake and his trainer, Sensei Masahiro, and the Gracie Barra School of Jiu Jitsu. A great achievement by another young Territorian. Well done, Jake.
Alice Springs Rugby players, Andrew Herbert, Clint Broomham and Jason Wardrop have been selected to play for Australia in the tour of Papua New Guinea at the end of September. Meanwhile, young Brendon Donnelly will play in the Australian Schoolboy Championships as he was selected to play in the Affiliated States Australian team. Brendon will be playing the highest schoolboy competition in Australia and will be watched by NRL scouts. Congratulations Andrew, Clint, Jason and Brendon. Play well and good luck with your pursuits.
In relation to health achievements, Lorena Walker, an Alice Springs dental assistant, has been selected as one of five Indigenous role models across Australia to headline a national multimedia campaign promoting health heroes. For six years, Lorena has been a dental assistant at the Flynn Drive Community Dental Clinic and says she has enjoyed working in dental health right in the middle of Alice Springs. Lorena thinks dentistry is good career and has plans to undertake university studies - a Bachelor of Oral Health. We need to congratulate people such as Lorena Walker for the work she has done in the dental profession and being such a great role model for young people across Central Australia.
In relation to education, the Alice Springs School of the Air celebrated its 60th anniversary on 9 May 2011. Our Minister for Central Australia officiated at this significant event and recognised it was the first radio school in Australia. Today, in 2011, it continues to break new ground in the technological delivery of education across Central Australia further ensuring every child in the Northern Territory has access to quality education wherever they may be living. Congratulations to all students, families and teachers who have been involved in this amazing institution over the 60 years of its vital existence.
In relation to the Arts, Josiah McAllan from Alice Springs is a boy soprano with the Junior Gondwana National Choir. The Junior Gondwana Choir is an entry-level training choir which caters for children with treble voices aged 10- to 13-years old. He is the only choir member from Alice Springs and recently travelled with the choir to Tasmania. Congratulations to Josiah, and we hope you keep up the good work.
Now to the magnificent Alice Springs Beanie Festival. What started as a small fun-time thing to do 15 years ago has grown into an event of national significance. At the Alice Springs Beanie Festival an all-time record of over $200 000-worth of sales over four days was achieved. That is a lot of beanies - $200 000-worth of sales with over 6500 beanies from all over Australia being sold. This is also a fantastic cross-cultural event with high levels of participation, predominantly women from Indigenous communities throughout Central Australia sitting and weaving, knitting and creating beanies along with tourists from Byron Bay, Broome or Ballarat. With the open night attracting over 2500 locals, people from across the region and tourists, both national and international, Alice Springs was buzzing with artistic creativity.
Events such as these cannot be successful without the tireless work and commitment of committee members and, in particular, I acknowledge the amazing voluntary work from both chairperson, Faye Epstien, and long-term organiser, Jo Nixon. Congratulations to all involved. Well done, and we will continue talking about Central Australia tomorrow night.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am forced tonight to defend the good people of Palmerston from one of my own colleagues, and all in regard to rubbish. Having a little knowledge of the history of rubbish from Darwin City Council and Palmerston Council, and the promise from this government that at some stage we are going to have a tri-service regional waste facility in the rural area, we do not seem to be any closer to having it.
Most people do not realise that the government issues licences for rubbish dumps and local council manages dumps. I recall, when working with the City of Palmerston, that the Palmerston dump filled up quickly and many of the people who used it were not from the Palmerston area. There was much evidence that builders or landscapers would dump their waste in Palmerston rather than go to the Darwin dump where they were charged by weight. Today, you can still dump your waste in Palmerston at no cost and most of the wet material is transferred to the Darwin facility. You must congratulate Darwin City Council as over all these years it has had an excellent waste facility. If you have a business where you receive waste and can make a few dollars out of it, you should be congratulated.
Today, it makes money from the Op shop, from charging people to drop green waste – businesses, etcetera - then turns it into mulch and uses it for council facilities as well as selling it to the general public. The wet waste, over the years, has created enough gas to run a power plant. It is a wonderful facility. I have thought for years that the Darwin City Council and the Northern Territory government have had a conspiracy the stop the dump - the major regional facility - being constructed because there is a dollar or two in it. Darwin City Council must make money out of waste coming from Palmerston and the rural area.
The member for Goyder has her reasons for suggesting as much as 30% of the waste is coming from Palmerston. It would be quality waste if it was coming from Palmerston. I had to defend Palmerston residents.
I want to talk about a Power and Water easement running down Roystonea Avenue, Gunn. Last year I wrote to the appropriate minister regarding what appeared to happen at the top of Roystonea Avenue. Work was being done there and the water had been diverted down the side where all the houses border the easement. So much water was coming down it eroded fence lines to the point one big, metal fence collapsed. To his credit, the minister had arranged retribution …
A member: Restitution.
Mr CHANDLER: Retribution is the wrong word.
The water had undermined this fence to the point where it collapsed. I wrote to the minister, and the minister was kind enough to ensure the fence was repaired. They also created a natural drain so, in future, the water would run into the correct drains. They cleaned out the drains which fixed the problem. Not only did they fix the fence lines, they also created a proper drain for the water and cleaned out the drains. It was a fantastic job.
The unfortunate thing is now, with the new pipe works going through to Johnston, the entire area has been dug up. The job is halfway through, I appreciate that. A number of residents have contacted me recently for a number of reasons. One is that Terry Drive still has a cut in the road to put the pipe works in and it has been like that for months now. We understand it would need to compact before bitumen can be put over it, but it has gone on for months and months now. There is a terrible lump in the road. What I can see coming next Wet Season is if they put too much soil back in the area it will create a mound where fence lines will be lower than the mound of dirt. With the rains of the Wet Season, we will not have one fence fall over, we will have all the fences in Roystonea Avenue fall. I ask the minister, when Power and Water do rectification works after the job is complete, can they take this into consideration so we do not have fences falling down, or dirty rainwater and mud flowing into people’s back yards where pools are, because it is going to become very mucky come the Wet Season.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I had the wonderful opportunity of attending the Uterne Solar Power Station in Alice Springs the week before last ...
Mr Wood: Did you drive down?
Mr CHANDLER: No, no.
Mr Wood: All right, just checking.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you. I learnt much about solar power stations. This is the largest single solar power station in Australia at this stage, producing 1MW of power. It is a great agreement between a private company and the federal government, which funded half the cost.
I found it amazing that you are opening the largest solar power station in Australia and the federal government could not send a minister, or even a member of parliament, to attend the opening. The member for Barkly was there, so was Mayor Damien Ryan, who did a wonderful job of opening the facility. I find it amazing that the largest solar panel power station in Australia, which was 50% federally-funded, and the federal government did not bother to send someone to open the facility. I find that quite bizarre. In fact, maybe it is spending more time, is more worried, or eager to discuss the carbon tax than real facilities like this which provide what can be the future of energy for many areas in this country.
I also learnt several things about solar power and how this, being a 1MW solar power station - much electricity - one of the downsides is Power and Water has to ensure it has enough reserve spinning power if a cloud goes over, because if it loses 1MW off the grid it has to have the spinning reserve to pick up so Alice Springs does not brown out. These are some of the complications the solar industry is yet to overcome.
Sometimes we have to step back and look at some of the renewable energy sources we have in this country and not put all our eggs in the one basket. At the end of the day, there are limitations to what can be delivered both through cost and infrastructure. I mentioned yesterday how some of the best opportunities for geothermal in this country are in the most remote areas. The infrastructure to get it to where the grids and customers are is cost-prohibitive at this stage.
The future is a wonderful thing because it is a time when we will have new technology. Maybe we should go back to Nikola Tesla and send some of this electricity through the air without wires; that would be interesting. Things will evolve as technology evolves, as we evolve as a species, and renewable energy is a real chance to make a difference in this country. We need to temper that with the reality it can be cost-prohibitive. It is hard to argue, when you have a tight budget, for something that might cost you three times the amount of money when a cheaper alternative is available. Money is not an endless stream. Governments have budgets and should stick to those budgets. Sometimes we need to temper what we can provide for the community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment on several issues, one being the matter raised by the member for Goyder. Honestly, without Litchfield, Palmerston would not exist because Darwin River Dam is in Litchfield, the Channel Island Power Station is in Litchfield, and all the sand that builds the houses is in Litchfield. I do not know why Palmerston is so ungrateful.
On a slightly more serious note with regard to the tip, or the waste transfer station, I cannot see why two councils cannot get together and share the facility as the suburbs of Palmerston, Zuccoli and Johnston, will only be half a kilometre away from that transfer station. It is time the two councils got together, bury their parochialism, and share it.
I would like to relate a story from a resident who came to see me this week. The minister for Education and the minister for Police might be interested in this. It is a tale of bureaucracy gone mad. I was recently approached by a teacher of 31 years in the Northern Territory who was registered by the TRB and also has an Ochre Card. He went on long service leave, came back from holidays at the end of first semester this year, and found his teacher registration had run out in January. Because of this, he had to fill out another form approved by the principal, have another police check and produce a birth certificate - which the Teacher Registration Board could not find. The new registration cost $115 instead of the usual $75 and, of course, there was the cost of another birth certificate.
After three weeks nothing happened between the Teacher Registration Board and SAFE-NT, which was conducting the police check. Let us not forget the teacher was previously registered and had an Ochre Card. There was much toing and froing between the Teacher Registration Board and SAFE-NT and, last Friday, he received an e-mail from the Teacher Registration Board saying he had an offence recorded and also had not filled out the form correctly. He did not know anything about this and tried to find out about the offence as he could not recall anything wrong. Let us not forget; he was a registered teacher and had an Ochre Card. No one would tell him. The Teacher Registration Board said it did not know. The director of the Teacher Registration Board wanted to know what the offence was, but the teacher could not tell him. This meant he could not teach and the school he taught at had to bring in another teacher to deliver his classes at taxpayers’ expense.
SAFE-NT could not tell him and told him to ring the director. The director was at a meeting; he left a message to ring but there was no response. He went to the Palmerston Police Station but they would not tell him. They gave him another number to ring in police and they also would not tell him. He finally went back to SAFE-NT yesterday and was told he needed to e-mail the director of SAFE-NT, which he did, and at last he was told of the offence: in 1990 he received a speeding ticket - 21 years ago - for doing 100 km/h in a 70 km/h zone which cost him, at that time, $80 plus $25 costs - a total of $125.
There is some good news. In the meantime – yesterday - he was informed he has been given interim registration until 1 September, which is when the Teacher Registration Board next sits. It has cost him time, money, and frustration, and has cost the taxpayer wages for an extra teacher for two weeks at the school. Madam Deputy Speaker, surely that is a tale of bureaucracy gone mad.
I would also like to talk about several events in my area. People might know Girraween Primary School is famous for its garden. It won the school category winner of the Melaleuca Awards for the year. I will read from the Power and Water flier which said:
- Last year Girraween Primary School hosted a sustainable school in action field day providing an opportunity to share and showcase everyday sustainable living practice. School groups and community
members visited through the day and students shared information about initiatives ranging from the school’s bucket recycling program to the butterfly farm and identifying and eradicating weeds.
Sustainability is recognised as a part of the school culture and students are proud to share their knowledge.
That is from last year’s awards. This year they also had Sustainability Day; a fantastic day. What other school has cattle? They have some nice Brahman cattle in a fenced off area. They have chooks, eggs, butterflies, veggies and were selling turkey bush tea, which I must admit is an acquired taste. They were selling rosella jam. They have a flower garden with ABC marked out in the school grounds because they have also been involved with the ABC garden competition. They had a Sustainability Day where they invited schools from as far south as Katherine and Ngukurr. Many Palmerston, Darwin, and rural schools visited and had a great day discussing anything from recycling, composting, saving power – all the things you would expect on a sustainability day.
What made it such a special day, and no one knew - yes, member for Nhulunbuy, I had forgotten you attended. Sorry, member for Nhulunbuy, my apologies - she opened the day and I will never live that down. Also, Jessica Mauboy turned up, which made the day. She is a fantastic lady. She did a concert with the kids and is just the same old Jessica. Years ago she would sing with Judy Weepers at The Beat, would sing at Carols by Candlelight, and has done charity concerts at Freds Pass. She has not changed. She might look flash with all the stars, but when she came to Girraween Primary School she was fantastic. We really appreciate what she did that day. I am really proud of this lady, not because I know her better than anyone else - she wrote me a nice note while I took a photograph of her holding a chook - you would have seen recently she refused sponsorship from an alcohol company. I say: ‘Good on her’. That takes guts. They were offering a large amount of money and she has done the right thing. I say publicly that if there were more people like her we would have many more role models in our society for young people to follow. Well done, Jessica.
We had a great concert and everyone enjoyed it. Jessica had two concerts, one for the people who attended the Sustainability Day from the schools, and the other later for the rest of the school.
Howard Springs school - I sometimes have my concerns about mixing and matching of plants and things; however, they have one of the best vegetable gardens you will ever see. I visited recently …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: This one is great. Tim West, from Greening Australia, has a bit to do with this. It is a fantastic garden. They have cauliflowers, which you do not see too often in the Northern Territory. They had broccoli; tomatoes everywhere; corn with no caterpillars; capsicums; herbs; onions; carrots, which were not looking too good but might be the wrong variety. It is a fantastic garden, one of the best. Much work has gone into it, not only by the students and teachers, but under the direction of Tim West from Greening Australia. I congratulate Howard Springs school.
So people know, St Francis of Assisi on Challoner Circuit, Humpty Doo is having a boot sale this Saturday between 8 am and 12 noon.
I was surprised to read on page 9 of the paper today the Pelly Road/Lorikeet Court subdivision which was flooded - the Ombudsman is reported as saying she is not conducting a review. I rang her and mentioned I was surprised because one of her staff has been doing a review of this for quite some time. At least we thought that. I now discover from the Ombudsman that the review is not happening. I am a confused about that, as are the residents. I explained to them tonight the Ombudsman has said, according to the paper, she is going to start the review. Most of us believed the review was well and truly under way. I wrote to the Ombudsman several months ago. A representative from the Ombudsman has been talking to the people. I hope whatever is happening in the Ombudsman’s department commences soon because the Wet Season is coming and people need help. Let us see what comes from that.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I had intended to touch on an issue last night in my adjournment debate relating to the aeromedical service in Katherine. I am somewhat surprised the Minister for Health could not be bothered, is too lazy, or could not give two hoots for anyone south of his electorate in comfortable Darwin; I do not know why he did not bother to talk about this but I will.
It is with much joy and pleasure that I announce CareFlight has commenced night time fixed-wing evacuations from Tindal. Finally, we are back to where we were three years ago, although probably not quite with the level of service we were getting, but we are heading in the right direction. It appears wallabies are no longer a significant issue, just as I flagged during estimates questions this year.
The airfield region is - and I quote from a letter from Mr Jeff Konemann, the chief pilot for CareFlight dated 30 July 2011 in which he said:
- The airfield containment area now has one kangaroo for every 2 ha, about one-twentieth of that seen in regional areas.
Thank you very much. Finally, the wallaby furphy is at a close, and the minister can no longer rely on this irrelevant and spurious argument for not having a full-time fixed-wing Priority 1 capable aircraft in Katherine, just as we had a number of years ago. Now the wallaby furphy has been dispelled, what is the Health minister going to rely on to excuse himself from the responsibility of putting full and proper aeromedical capacity in Katherine? He is going to blame a lack of trained staff.
During the Estimates Committee hearing this year, the minister and other witnesses before the committee cited the preference for a ‘consolidated’ service. One of the central issues was the difficulty in attracting and maintaining staff, and their training, in places like Katherine. During those estimates questions, I asked the minister whether there had ever been any flight-trained doctors in Katherine. His response then was - and I quote from the Hansard:
- Yes there were nurses - only nurses, not a doctor.
I pushed the minister further and he became a little uncertain. I guess that is because he does not get out of Darwin as much as he should. He does not get to Katherine Hospital, and has not over the last number of years, to discover there are and have been flight-trained doctors. There have been flight-trained nurses, but there have also been flight-trained doctors based in Katherine. When he became uncertain about the answer he said he would - I cannot find the quote now; however, we asked a question on notice about flight-trained doctors. I received the answer to the question of notice recently saying: ‘Yes, there has’. First he said: ‘No, there were no doctors, only flight-trained nurses’. The answer after he checked was: ‘Yes, there has’. The answer continues:
- However, there have not been sufficient doctors to run an aeromedical roster out of Katherine since 2002-03.
I want you to remember that date: not enough doctors to run an aeromedical roster out of Katherine since 2002-03. I knew the answers to some of these questions before I asked them. I knew people like Jim Scattini, PJ Spafford and Tony Watson were all flight-trained doctors who lived in Katherine during that time. If there were not enough doctors to maintain an aeromedical roster in Katherine in 2002-03, why did your government base a full-time aeromedical plane in Katherine at the beginning of the Pearl Aviation contract which commenced in - drum roll, wait for it - 2004. In 2003, there were not enough doctors to staff a full aeromedical roster, yet, the government, in 2004 - one year later - put in a full-time aeromedical evacuation fixed-wing aircraft out of Tindal Air Base.
How is that possible? How do you put a full-time aeromedical service in Katherine when, according to the minister’s answer to a question on notice:
- There have not been sufficient doctors to run an aeromedical roster out of Katherine since 2002-03.
It is clearly evidence this government is more and more irrelevant by the day. It is tired, it is lazy and lacking any real direction. For goodness sake, the minister cannot even get questions right and some consistency around a simple issue of an aeromedical service in Katherine.
Now we are relegated to having a second class service because, under the new 10-year contract, we will have an aeroplane in Katherine for low priority taxi rides - repatriations from Katherine to outlying communities and from outlying communities into Katherine for regular medical treatment. No Priority 1 aircraft will be based in Katherine because the minister does not really care, and this government does not really care, about regional parts of the Northern Territory. We cover an area from Borroloola to the west Australian border, from as far as Daly Waters, even Elliott, to the south yet we are relegated to a second class service in Katherine.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is further evidence of how irrelevant this government is becoming, particularly outside these cushy Darwin electorates which it seems to think it holds quite comfortably. Perhaps the Minister for Health, the member for Casuarina, is not running at the next election. If so, the Chief Minister needs to tell us because perhaps he has lost interest.
It is a good win for Katherine to have at least night time evacuation capacity out of Tindal because the wallabies have virtually gone. I give credit to the Department of Defence in Katherine, based at Tindal, which has undertaken an exhaustive program to control wallaby numbers inside the new fence. My view still remains Katherine has missed out. We have been relegated to a second class service as a result of the lack of direction of this government, particularly when it comes to the broader electorate of the Northern Territory.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I defend Palmerston residents. We have heard several members tonight in adjournment talking about rubbish – dumps, that is - and waste transfer. Who in their right mind thinks rubbish is so important we should talk about it tonight? However, it has been raised so I must defend my fellow colleagues, the Palmerston residents. Because security guards are not at the Howard Springs transfer station people are not suddenly taking their rubbish there.
There has been a failure to properly plan our waste facilities to be one managed facility. Do you believe people in Farrar, the future suburb of Johnston, or Zuccoli, whenever it may come online, look to the top of the hill at Howard Springs refuse facility and think: ‘Hang on, I have to travel 5 km in the other direction’. Of course you would go to the closest facility. Much work needs to be done.
When I was in Alice Springs last week doing portfolio work, I spoke to the Alice Springs Mayor and his technical services staff. Waste refuse dumps were discussed and the fact the entire region - there is no plan for the region on how to manage refuse facilities. It is not a rural one and an urban one; we need a joint approach to all of them. It is hard to believe you would make people drive 5 km or 6 km to a refuse facility when 1 km to the east there is a refuse facility. It is bizarre that we split them.
I take the opportunity to talk about the electoral redistribution which will come into play at the next election. We have already been visiting Gray Primary School, which is almost on the border of my current electorate. Quite a few people within the electorate of Drysdale have students attending Gray Primary School. It has been exciting to see some of the kids and the aspirations of one of the older schools in the area. I look forward to working with the Gray Primary School, and this government, or a new government, to ensure we have good, well-maintained facilities and a fantastic learning environment for our kids in that area.
Gray is set to come under the electorate of Drysdale, and I am looking forward to working in that area. There have been many discussions about things occurring in that area. Knowing people from Gray over the years of policing in Palmerston, I am confident they are all great people to work with and are keen to see a friendly face come doorknocking.
Part of that will be the Good Shepherd Lutheran College. I had reason to attend a cancer foundation morning tea some time ago. We had a fantastic morning tea in a building which was part of the BER program, well-used, well-deserved and well thought out for the school’s purpose.
I look forward to working further with Sacred Heart Primary School. Unfortunately, the redistribution means Palmerston Christian School will drop off, so instead of having four primary schools in my electorate I will have five. I lose one but gain two and, as many people in Palmerston know, I love the schools because they are definitely a learning environment. It is fantastic to get involved with kids, encourage them and get them excited about their learning experience. I cannot say for my entire schooling years I was excited about school; however, I am a big advocate for it nowadays and honoured to be able to help the schools keep the kids excited and pass on healthy, safe messages.
As the member for Nelson mentioned, one of the schools he visited with a fantastic garden - I have mentioned many times in this House the Driver Primary School garden, the best in the Northern Territory. I encourage other schools to step up to the mark and look at the benefits of that learning environment. They are very rewarding. Come along, have a look, go to the Howard Springs one. There are several in town as well. Get into the ones in Darwin city and have a look.
On Thursday, 28 July, I visited Sacred Heart Primary School for another opening under the BER. I was struck by the bizarre comments from federal senator, Trish Crossin, as I walked in. She said: ‘Oh, if you were in government we would not have this facility’. That was disappointing in front of other people because I am not one to spit back. It is inappropriate for members of parliament. It is fine to fight on the floor, but not so good in a public forum. Our biggest concern with the BER was the way money was spent. If anyone took the time to see what happened around Australia, they would be pleased to note in the Northern Territory, due to great diligence from school councils and school executives, projects were far better managed than in any other state. We have a tough bunch of people in the Territory and they know how to hold their own. They ensured what they got was good, whereas, in Victoria and South Australia, they got hit pretty hard with some bizarre outcomes.
In Question Time, under the Construction and Infrastructure portfolio, under asset management, I asked the minister what costs were going to flow from these extra facilities - what budgetary costs were allocated for these new facilities. The minister ummed and ahhed and fought with great vigour. Minister, this is not the last time you are going to hear this - start preparing now. The minister fought and made excuses. He asked me if I really wanted to know the extra maintenance and running costs of the BER project facilities. In the end, I felt I was almost pressured into succumbing saying: ‘That is all right, we will move on’. I made a mistake because I now get the same blank shrug of the shoulders when I ask the schools.
There is an immediate cost. That cost has to come from the existing budget until schools amend their budgets for next year. It has hurt them financially. It is a great benefit to have assets, but they cost money to run. Minister, when I ask you in the future, give me an answer; tell us how much this has added to the financial cost of our schools. Do not duck and weave; get the answer. It was a cheeky stunt and you managed to pull it off; however, we will need to know those costs and I expect them to start coming forward.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016