2009-11-24
CEREMONIAL OPENING
Alice Springs Regional Sittings
Alice Springs Regional Sittings
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 9 am.
The Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms announced distinguished guests.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, distinguished guests, ladies, gentlemen, and students welcome to the fourth Regional Sittings of the Legislative Assembly held in Alice Springs. I am sure honourable members will join with me in saying how much we enjoy visiting the Centre and sharing the Territory’s parliamentary democracy with the people of Central Australia.
Over the past six months, the Legislative Assembly has worked hard preparing for these sittings, and I hope many of you visiting today or listening to the parliamentary broadcast, will take the opportunity to watch your parliament in action over the next few days.
Before formal proceedings commence at around 9.30 am it is proposed to celebrate our visit with speeches and music. At the end of the welcome a morning tea will be served in the courtyard area, to which guests are invited to join those honourable members who are able to leave the Chamber.
Honourable members, I acknowledge the traditional owners of the area, represented by theLhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation, and invite Mr Benedict Stevens, on behalf of the Native Titleholders of Alice Springs, to address the Assembly.
Mr STEVENS: Good morning, Madam Speaker and members of parliament, distinguished guests, ladies, gentlemen, and students, welcome on behalf of all the traditional owners, Native Titleholders and Lhere Artepe to the opening of the regional sittings of the Northern Territory parliament on Central Australian country in Alice Springs. In language, I again welcome you mob.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Stevens, for your gracious welcome to country.
Honourable members, in considering this visit to Alice Springs it seemed appropriate to invite that quintessential Territorian, former Administrator of the Northern Territory, Mr Ted Egan AO, to perform his song A Town Like Alice, as a welcome to the sittings.
Mr EGAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
- Some folk like a place
That is sophisticated
Or where the sea is nearer
But give me a town situated in
A scene by Namatjira
Town like Alice
It is just the place for me
With my own piece of ground
The mountains around
That’s where I’ll be
I don’t need a palace
Just want a simple home
With the blue sky above
And someone to love
I’ll never roam
Give me a cluster
Of roofs that shine
In the midday sun
A quiet hour on a verandah
When my day’s work is done
I might like Dallas
I would visit gay Paree
But when I settle down
It must be a town like Alice
For me.
Yes, when I settle down
It must be a town like Alice
For me.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Ted. We miss seeing you in Darwin but I understand Alice is really your home.
I now call the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): I acknowledge our Deputy Administrator, Pat Miller; the Right Worshipful Mayor of Alice Springs, Mr Damien Ryan; Mr Stevens; Leader of the Opposition; fellow parliamentarians; and all the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia who are here today. It is great to be back in Alice Springs for our fourth regional sittings of the Alice Springs parliament.
I thank Benedict Stevens for his welcome to country. I acknowledge the traditional owners and Native Titleholders of this Central Arrernte land we are on, and thank them for allowing us to hold our event in Alice Springs.
Finally, to Ted - thank you for your great performance. We miss you in Darwin, it is wonderful to see you, and I look forward to catching up soon. Ted, what a great welcome to Alice Springs.
This is the fourth Northern Territory parliamentary sittings in Alice Springs, an initiative started back in 2003. It is about bringing parliament to the people. It is great to see students today, and we are going to have many students here over the next three days. It really is about opening up democracy to the people of Central Australia and bringing parliament here. It is about giving people an opportunity to see democracy in action that, otherwise, would not have been possible due to the distance which separates Alice Springs from Darwin.
As I said in my welcome last night, for people who really want to engage with parliament on a regular basis, it is now broadcast over the Internet, both in sound and vision. From now on, thanks to Madam Speaker and the Assembly staff, people from around the Northern Territory will be able to watch parliament all the time we are sitting.
There is nothing more important than getting to Alice Springs and it is great to be back. It is something I am very proud to be part of. I believe I speak for all members in this Chamber when I say we really look forward to these sittings, and the week ahead.
The next few days will, undoubtedly, see a focus on Alice Springs, Central Australia, and the regions - and rightfully so. We are really going to be focusing on Central Australia. It also gives the people of Central Australia a chance to speak to their elected representatives about their views. It is also an opportunity for people who are not used to parliament. We are not glued to our chairs the entire time parliament is debating, and it is an opportunity for us to sit in the galleries and meet with the people of Central Australia. We will be doing that over the next few days.
Holding sittings in Alice Springs does not happen without an enormous amount of work. It is a huge logistical effort to bring parliament to Alice Springs. I pay tribute to our Speaker who, with the Legislative Assembly staff, do a tremendous job in making this happen - not only the logistics, which is an incredible feat in itself, but also promoting the parliament to Alice Springs and Central Australia. Madam Speaker has been to Alice on a regular basis, engaging with the broader community, particularly through our schools and art competitions, which is all about promoting parliament in Alice Springs. Thank you, Madam Speaker and all the staff who do a magnificent job.
I look forward to the week ahead and I hope people from Alice Springs and the Central Australian region, enjoy witnessing their parliament in action. There will be robust debate, as there is in any parliamentary democracy. It is the best system in the world, and it is fantastic to be able to bring this to Alice Springs. I look forward to the week ahead, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, distinguished and honoured guests, the residents of Alice Springs, and my parliamentary colleagues, this is something we look forward to, particularly having the galleries fuller than they are in Darwin, believe it or not. It holds us to a sense of account; that we must discuss and consider matters in the best interests of Territorians, particularly in Central Australia. I thank you for doing this.
I got off the plane yesterday from the Top End and could not believe it was so cool. I was unprepared for that. I trust, though, the proceedings within this Chamber will not be as cool as the air is. However, I must say I am enjoying the coolness of the air. The Top End, at the moment, is very warm.
Recently I have had the opportunity to visit schools in Central Australia. I know there is a level of excitement and interest in what goes on in this House. I trust our discussions will be of benefit to those young ones in particular, as they come here and acknowledge the discussions taking place in this Chamber are ultimately in their interests.
I thank you for the warm welcome. My colleagues and I really enjoy the opportunity, not just of moving parliament to another place - acknowledging the extraordinary amount of work which has gone on behind the scenes – but, more importantly, the connection with the people which sustains us in our work. We have a responsibility to represent and give voice to the concerns of our fellow Territorians. The opportunity is here in Central Australia to meet with fellow Territorians, and hear their stories, as we did last night. We are unaccustomed in the north to having great ranges sitting behind us. It is awesome! However, the company of locals, the stories they tell, the people we have met so far, and will meet, and the issues we will explore, I trust our endeavours here will advance your best interests. Thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. Honourable members, we have been very grateful for the support of the Alice Springs Town Council, and I am very pleased to invite the mayor of Alice Springs, His Worship, Mr Damien Ryan, to speak to the Assembly.
Mr RYAN (Mayor, Alice Springs): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to welcome you to Alice Springs for the Northern Territory parliamentary sittings. I acknowledge the Central Arrernte people, who are the traditional owners and custodians of Alice Springs.
Local people do not see the Todd River in the same way most other people view the Todd. Most people only see a dry river bed which runs through our town, but I appreciate the outlook of local Indigenous people, and ask you to take a similar outlook. They feel the Todd River runs upside down, because the water is always below the sand, and our upside down river, which runs through town, may be dry on top, but always runs rich beneath the surface.
I would like to share this idea as an analogy of the Alice Springs parliamentary sittings, because it can be said the Northern Territory parliament has been turned upside down this week, and what is normally viewed in Darwin is with us in Alice Springs. I also like this story because it reminds us that, what some may see as empty, others see as full, and that all Centralians have a unique connection to the Todd.
Nothing brings our whole town together like the cleansing sight of the river in flow, and this awesome and powerful river humbles and inspires all who witness it. It is one of the jobs of the Alice Springs Town Council to protect and preserve this amazing asset for future generations, and we are very proud to play our part in looking after the river.
Today, I invite you, our Northern Territory parliamentarians, to be part of that as well, and to let the land humble, move, and beckon you towards making decisions which will benefit and prosper those you represent. I ask you to think about the land you sit on and connect with it the way Centralians do. Let it inspire you and drive you to make those imperative decisions which will make a positive difference to our town and the Northern Territory.
What makes our community in Alice Springs unique is our shared passion for the town. I ask you also to embrace that passion, and to use it to propel you forward, making the right decisions for our future. Thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Mayor. I also thank the Alice Springs Town Council for putting on a very warm welcome to the parliament at a barbecue on Sunday afternoon at the swimming pool, where it was very cool and not so many people went swimming as had been expected.
Honourable members, I invite the Ntaria Ladies Choir to perform a local Christmas carol. The ladies travelled from Hermannsburg yesterday to be part of the ceremony.
Thank you very much to the Ntaria Ladies Choir, and to the conductor, David Roenfeldt.
Honourable members, I now call on Mr Ted Egan to lead us in singing the National Anthem, first in Luritja and then in English. The words have been translated by the member for Macdonnell, and I thank her very much. I ask you to stand for the National Anthem.
- Advance Australia Fair
Anangula a tjutala
Unparri yingila
Manta ngangka win king kula
Kapi puntutjarra
Nanarri puntu ngurrangka
Puturrna kulinyi
Irriditja a wan kara
Kutju, Anangula
Kutjuringla a warrala
Kutju Anangula
Australians all, let us rejoice
For we are young and free
We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil
Our home is girt by sea
Our land abounds in nature’s gifts
Of beauty rich and rare
In history’s page, let every stage
Advance, Australia fair
In joyful strains, then let us sing
Advance Australia Fair
Honourable members, that concludes the ceremonial opening of the regional sittings. In accordance with the routine of business agreed to by the Assembly, pursuant to resolution dated the 15 October 2009, it is now proposed to proceed with the formal business of the Assembly commencing with prayers.
_________________
Madam SPEAKER: I invite all honourable members and guests to stand for prayers.
Madam Speaker Aagaard read Prayers.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge a number of people who have come here today and honoured us with their presence, so they can be recorded in Hansard.
First, I acknowledge, in the Speaker’s Gallery, Mrs Patricia Miller, Deputy of the Administrator of the Northern Territory, representing the Administrator Mr Tom Pauling AO QC. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Mr Justice Dean Mildren, representing the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory; His Worship the Mayor of Alice Springs, Mr Damien Ryan and Mrs Joanne Ryan; former Administrator of the Northern Territory, Mr Ted Egan AO and Ms Nerys Evans; former Chief Justice of the Northern Territory, Mr Brian Martin AO MBE; and Consul for the Republic of Indonesia, Mr Harbangan Napitupulu who, I might add, has come especially from Darwin for this occasion.
Former members of the Legislative Assembly: Mrs Loraine Braham, who is the former member for Braitling and a former Speaker; and Mr Neville Perkins, the former member for Macdonnell; welcome to our Assembly. The many CEOs who have come from Darwin to be here today, and members of the Statehood Steering Committee, who have been meeting in Alice Springs; thank you very much for coming.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, in the gallery we have Year 7, Year 8 and Year 9 students from Yirara College, accompanied by Mr Tim Goetze, Mrs Rose Mutuoto, Mrs Leanne Hall and Mrs Clarice Koch; and Year 3 and Year 4 students from Braitling Primary School, accompanied by Ms Lyn Ansell.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 13
Message No 13
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the Table Message No 13 from His Honour the Administrator advising of his assent to bills passed in the October sittings of the Assembly.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT (NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS) BILL
(Serial 61)
(Serial 61)
Continued from 15 October 2009.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is the intent of the opposition to support the passage of this bill. I acknowledge the briefings we have received, but there are matters which have come to light, in recent times, in this bill which need to be referred to. It is only in the last few hours matters of concern have been raised by the non-government sector, and I will give reference to those matters of concern; notwithstanding, the bill will receive the support of the opposition, with attention given to issues of concern.
In commencing the debate on Education Amendment (Non-Government Schools) Bill 2009, I acknowledge it is time for a refresh, a reframing, and an assessment of how we manage the very important non-government schools sector. It is also important to acknowledge the role of the non-government sector in the delivery of education in the Northern Territory and in Central Australia, in particular.
I also acknowledge the role the non-government school sector has played in developing leadership. We often we hear commentary from members on both sides of politics on matters of concern, particularly to our Indigenous Territorians, and it does not escape notice that most of those who passed comment are beneficiaries of a non-government education system.
The non-government education system has served the Territory very well, when we look, historically, at those who understand the importance of education. We look at the Catholic system, the Lutherans, and others, who have served selflessly and courageously, for many years, at great cost, the people of the Central Australia and across the Territory.
Frankly, I believe we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the non-government sector in the delivery of education in the Northern Territory. I do not believe enough is said to acknowledge that immense debt.
I also have to declare my own interests. I was educated in the Catholic system and I have been the principal of a non-government school for 10 years in the Territory, after working for seven years in schools in Western Australia. I acknowledge the non-government sector has been involved in the crafting of this bill.
Many of the measures described in the bill are eminently sensible. The one issue of concern, however, which needs to be referred to, is the interaction between the two systems - the government system and the non-government system. It is in the area of review and assessment of the non-government sector. It strikes me as odd the crafting of the mechanism to review – that is, inspect - the non-government sector sits in legislation. I believe it would be far more sensible to put it in policy, so it has a degree of flexibility in its application. This is not just an observation of my own, but it is a recent comment made by the Catholic system, in particular.
To go one step further and have the Chief Executive Officer of the government system, in effect, potentially having veto of the non-government sector in the capacity to adjudicate, to assess, to review, and to inspect, is a concern, particularly when it is defined in legislation. Policy would be a far more useful tool to achieve the objectives. Everyone wants accountability, but to have it enshrined in legislation and embodied in the authority of a Chief Executive Officer of the government sector is an area of concern to the non-government sector.
Another area of concern is the body which does the review being, effectively, brought together by the CEO of the government sector. I believe there needs to be some more discussion and engagement on this particular area. It is with some concern the non-government sector, only recently, discovered this area of concern, and had insufficient time to provide some address to this by way of amendment but, nonetheless, draw attention to this area of concern.
As these matters are raised and there is further engagement with the non-government sector on this specific issue of assessment and review of the non-government sector effectively by the Chief Executive Officer of the government system, I trust there will be wisdom used in negotiating how this is implemented. The non-government sector has a proud record, and has systems in place to review its own performance. I know the Catholic system does. From the conversation I had with Mr Michael Avery this morning, there are systems in place and they have the requirement for a sound system for independent assessment of the findings of any review. I know the system I was involved in, as a responsible and mature system, had its own methods of internal assessment, with external authentication of the findings of any review.
There are already systems in place, but what is occurring now is there will be two systems in place - one enshrined in legislation. There is potentially conflict between the two, and a duplication of effort between the two. There is a restriction in one, because it is enshrined in legislation and not policy, to give the capacity for a more flexible approach. We want to ensure the core business of schools is enhanced, not impeded, by systems which are put in place for systems’ sake.
Those matters are important issues, I believe, and as we move closer to the implementation of the aspects of this bill, there may be, in time to come, a need for refinement. However, more broadly speaking, the bill itself has the support of the non-government sector, from my understanding of the briefings from the department, and also in conversation with Michael Avery from the Catholic system, who advises me, broadly speaking, the non-government sector generally are supportive, as was confirmed during the government briefing.
I welcome the refreshment of this act and the framing of measures to assist in the registration of new schools. It is a good and necessary step, notwithstanding the aspects I spoke of in my earlier comments.
Finally, I have not been able to visit all non-government schools in Central Australia, however I have been visiting local schools and have been to St Philip’s several times. I admire its facilities and the ethos of the school; I went to Yirara some time ago. My most recent visit took me to government primary schools, and some middle and secondary schools.
As we are nearing the end of the year, I ask the Year 6 students where they will go next year, because it is interesting to hear their plans for the following year. I was taken aback when the clear majority were either going to St Philip’s or OLSH; the non-government sector. It caused some response from those around me saying one issue was the change in delivery of the government sector secondary education in Alice Springs. The other issue is the fine job the non-government sector does in Central Australia. It was a vote of confidence in the non-government sector, and with the historical contribution of the non-government sector to Central Australia - immensely admirable - which has occurred in the past and is occurring to this day.
To members of this Chamber, who speak with some authority, which is largely derived from their education in the non-government sector, I say these things, so when we weigh the measures in this bill, we do not just throw up bureaucracy and systems to measure, but we respect and enhance the contribution the non-government sector has made to education, which is not a system in competition with the government sector. It is a system to support quality practice and, as iron sharpens iron, one sharpens the other, and together we improve education services for our young people, and one system informs and strengthens the other. We can have our arguments and discussions as to why one does well, but ultimately the purpose is developing a quality system.
The challenge is, as I used to say to the former minister for Education, be careful you do not find yourself being the minister for the department of Education; you are the minister for Education; the whole is important. This is a part of the whole to ensure the measures enhance the delivery of education across the board and, in this case, in the non-government sector.
This bill does have our support, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker; however, we will be watching and working closely with the non-government sector on the specific issue of the inspection and review of non-government schools.
_____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I acknowledge Braitling Primary School Year 3/4, with their teachers Ms Lyn Ansell and Mr Chad Manning, who is a student teacher from the University of Newcastle, Ms Emma Cornock, a parent volunteer, and Mrs Alice de Brenni, a parent volunteer. I welcome you to the parliament in Alice Springs.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate before the house this morning regarding the Education Amendment (Non-Government Schools) Bill 2009, which seeks to amend the Education Act.
In essence, the amendments are borne of a need to revisit dated legislation which is overdue for review. What we see before the House today are amendments which endeavour to contemporise the legislation by bringing it into line with other jurisdictions in Australia and, in so doing, provide a level of accountability which does not exist in terms of what today’s expectations might be amongst the community. Whether our schools are in the non-government or government sector, it is imperative we provide the best possible outcomes for children and we legislate to ensure this does occur through rigorous legislation.
Governments at the territory, state, and federal level invest in non-government schools. It is only right we might expect to have a stake in what that investment is delivering and how, knowing the most important outcome is positive education outcomes for children, whether they are in my electorate on Nhulunbuy, in Alice Springs, or anywhere in Australia. When I speak of investment, this is what we have witnessed this year with the Rudd government’s federal stimulus package, and the billions of dollars dedicated to the Building the Education Revolution, which has seen packages delivered around Australian schools, both government and non-government. While not only providing a significant unprecedented boost to schools infrastructure, it has also successfully kept people in jobs, and successfully staved off a recession.
Why does the government invest in the non-government sector of education? It is about supporting choice for whatever reason, be it a sectarian or a non-sectarian model, or one which focuses on certain methodology for teaching and learning. It is about choice, and it is about alternative models or operating philosophies. In my electorate, the establishment of Nhulunbuy Christian School 10 years ago, under the auspices of the Northern Territory Christian Schools Association - and it has recently held its 10th birthday celebrations to mark the occasion - has been a real success story.
I recall the initial communication in our community driven by a group of parents who were seeking an alternative schooling option, especially knowing other towns of similar sizes had established an education alternative. It started out with two composite classes of students in borrowed classrooms on the campus of our local CDU and TAFE facility, and two years later moved into brand new school buildings built on land donated by Nabalco.
Today, Nhulunbuy Christian School has a student population of around 180, with children enrolled from the early childhood program in transition, through to middle school in Year 9. The school campus has progressively expanded over the years with its student population. With the support of the government, and some of the current expansion due to the federal government’s Building the Education Revolution funding, a new building is under construction to house a Home Economics Centre and a Science Centre. For many people in Nhulunbuy their decision to send their children to our local Christian school centres upon a strong desire to have their children at a school where the Christian faith is taught explicitly as curriculum, and underpins the whole school philosophy.
There is also an element within the school, and I know the Principal, Andrew Manning, would be the first to admit it, it happily accepts enrolments from families who are seeking an alternative to either Nhulunbuy Primary School or Yirrkala Community Education Centre.
I know Nhulunbuy Primary School is a wonderful school; my three children were educated there, and my youngest is now in Year 4. It is also one of the largest primary schools in the Northern Territory with a student population of just under 500. For some families, especially those moving from places where their children have come from smaller schools, the size of Nhulunbuy Primary School can be overwhelming.
As much as the owners of the mining operations, Rio Tinto Alcan, dislike Nhulunbuy being called a mining town, it was an important project to support, in the knowledge that, as part of recruiting and retaining employees, and especially those with families, it was a sensible move to support the establishment of a new school because people needed to have an element of choice.
The Leader of the Opposition is correct in acknowledging the important contribution of the non-government sector in delivering education in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government does work with the non-government sector, and will continue to work with the non-government sector to enhance that system; and the bill before the House today is part of that.
This opportunity for choice has expanded in the Northern Territory. As the Chief Minister said, in his second reading speech, in August 2000, there were 32 non-government schools with 8708 students enrolled. In 2008 there were 36 non-government schools, bringing the total number of students enrolled to 10 063, which included additional enrolments as a result of schools which had gained approval to increase the range of year levels they offered. Without a doubt, Nhulunbuy Christian School would have contributed to that increase in student numbers.
The amendments in this bill before the House today centre upon two areas: the first is the replacement of Part 3 of the Education Act, which relates to advisory councils. The amendments before us would abolish the Education Advisory Council and replace the existing provisions with new provisions for advisory councils. Basically, the Education Advisory Board, whilst it has provided the minister with good advice from board members over the years, has effectively become excess to requirements, given the growth in the role of the Northern Territory Board of Studies as an advisory group. In addition, and with the existence of the Northern Territory Indigenous Advisory Council, and the Non-Government Schools Ministerial Advisory Council, the Education Advisory Board can be regarded as redundant.
Governments need to be mindful of being overly bureaucratic, and streamline for the most effective ways of operating, while ensuring advisory bodies representing the interests of all stakeholders and, in this instance, in the area of education, are represented and do have a voice. For this reason, the amendments in Part 3(2) also include provisions which allow for the establishment of advisory councils by the minister:
(a) to give advice or make recommendations generally on questions affecting education in the Territory, or a particular aspect of education in the Territory as they arise; or
These provisions for advisory councils are obviously a very sensible inclusion.
The greater changes to the Education Act proposed through this bill deals with Part 7 of the act, which provides for changes to the registration of new non-government schools, as well as changes for existing non-government schools, which will amount to greater accountability. There have been no amendments to Part 7 of the act since the late 1980s and, as I have mentioned, there has been considerable growth in this sector, as well as a call for a higher level of accountability and, with it, an expectation standards of performance, management, and good governance practices be continuously nurtured and developed.
I have no doubt improvement in this area has evolved and grown, along with community and government expectations. However, this bill will formalise the process by putting clear mechanisms in place to ensure schools in the non-government sector are compliant.
It is important to note from the outset these changes have not only been fully supported by the peak body for non-government schools, the Non-Government Schools Ministerial Advisory Council, but have, to a large degree, been driven by it. Consultation has, obviously, played a big role in this process, through the Non-Government Schools Ministerial Advisory Council and its member groups, which includes, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, the Catholic Education Office, Northern Territory Christian Schools Association, and the Association of Independent Schools of the Northern Territory.
Proposed changes under Part 7 of the current act aim to enhance quality assurance through changes which will improve accountability, which is inherent in the registration process. Currently the registration requirement for proposed new non-government schools is fairly basic, with information required around location, management structure, financial position, qualifications of its teaching staff, proposed curriculum to be taught, year levels for students enrolling, as well as details about buildings and infrastructure.
It is apparent there is a body of information which, to date, has not been part of the registration process, requirements to address, for instance: management of student’s health, safety and wellbeing; information around how a school would manage a critical incident; matters around discipline and how corporal punishment is not accepted. Currently lacking in the act are mechanisms for complaint and dispute resolution. The new provisions within this bill set out requirements for governing bodies, matters of governance and school performance management, and reporting standards. Without these in place, there is not the level of accountability the government, the community, and families would expect.
The proposed registration requirements under the act, as laid out in section 61A, are prescriptive - noting the comments of the Leader of the Opposition - but it is necessary to make the requirements very clear to ensure the act is robust.
The proposed section 61B is a new measure for non-government schools in the Territory, which will require the sector to demonstrate consistency with basic principles in order to reflect specific Australian values, as spelt out in four clauses; that is, they must be consistent with the following principles:
(a) governments should be democratically elected;
The inclusion of this section which, I should add, is commensurate with other jurisdictions, means non-government schools which fail to demonstrate they are operating under these basic principles will not be able to register. It also gives the Chief Executive Officer the power to not register, or deregister schools where there is some doubt about the school’s ability to abide by, and maintain, these principles. In this day and age, where we place such value upon embracing diversity, we, sadly, have to be watchful of how this is upheld or not upheld.
The only other aspect of the bill I wanted to comment on, because it is important, is the section which deals with the registration assessment, whereby the applicant is required to address the likely impact of any proposed new non-government school on schools already existing in a catchment area. As the Chief Minister said, this is an area which is potentially contentious, but it is important in protecting schools which already exist in an area, and where predictions of growth may not warrant a new school coming into the area. It is important, because we need to assess the viability and sustainability of existing schools with any proposed plan for new schools.
I mentioned earlier the need for choice; allow me to qualify the matter of choice. Quite clearly, with Nhulunbuy Christian School in my electorate, there was a demand for choice and capacity within the area to accommodate a new school. This has been demonstrated over the last 10 years at Nhulunbuy Christian School by virtue of the increase in the number of enrolments, and that enrolment figures at Nhulunbuy Primary School have not declined despite there being a new school to take primary school students. Also, the primary school has lost its Year 7s, under the introduction of middle schools in the Northern Territory, which has seen students locate to high school campuses.
The government has a vested interest in ensuring any proposal for a new non-government school must be viable, especially given the financial investment governments make in the non-government sector. It is taxpayer money and, as the Chief Minister said in his second reading speech, it needs to be spent judiciously. I am sure those students who were here earlier from Braitling Primary School would not want to see their school threatened with closure as a result of a new school opening in their area, where that new school might present a real threat to the viability of their school because growth in that area is not warranted.
As I said earlier, and as the Chief Minister has said, consultation around these amendments to the Education Act have been extensive, and testimony to this is the endorsement of the key stakeholder group, the Non-Government School Ministerial Advisory Council. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Larapinta Primary School students, Year 5/6, with teachers, Ms Annie Lewis, Mr Peter Andrews, and Mrs Candy Kerr. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr HENDERSON (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support for the bill, and also the member for Nhulunbuy for a very comprehensive brief on the impacts of this bill, and what it will achieve.
In picking up on the Leader of the Opposition’s comments, this legislation has been thoroughly consulted with the Non-Government School Ministerial Advisory Council; a large body of amendments to the Education Amendment (Non-Government Schools) Bill have come from the non-government schools sector, and it has been consulted every step of the way in updating the act, which everybody recognises needs to be refreshed and contemporised, given today’s educational settings.
In regard to the comments from the Leader of the Opposition, I acknowledge our non-government school sector in the Territory does play a critical role in delivering both education and quality education services throughout the Northern Territory. Since becoming Education minister, I can attest to the fact the department of Education and the non-government school sector work in a spirit of partnership, collaboration and cooperation around a range of issues, particularly in sharing education resources and contemporary education thinking, and a sense of partnership in working together to deliver quality education outcomes throughout the Territory.
This is driven, in part, because we are a small jurisdiction. The players know each other and, in the education system, there are a number of teachers who move to and from the non-government system and the government system. With the transient nature of Territory families, many of our students move between the government system and the non-government system, particularly through primary school, middle school and senior schooling. Given we are a small system and there are many teachers and students who move into and out of the government and the non-government system, and acknowledging in the Northern Territory we do not have ‘Ivy League’ non-government schools replete with excessive cash balances and significant support from wealthy individuals, our non-government school sector battles well on behalf of its student base.
Regarding the amendments to this act, I would say they have been collaboratively put together. Discussions with people from the non-government school sector reflect they are happy with the bill.
I pick up on the specific issues the Leader of the Opposition raised on the interaction between the non-government sector and the government sector, particularly regarding any reviews, assessments, or investigations which may need to take place around a non-government school. The powers that the Chief Executive of Education, or myself, as minister, had in relation to a non-government school, for all logical interpretation of the words ‘a failing school’, were not clear.
Where it could be seen the school was struggling and failing in its duties to provide a quality education system, there was almost a Mexican standoff between the Commonwealth government, as the primary funding source of non-government schools, and the Territory government, where the school is registered under the Northern Territory Education Act, as to who had the powers to intervene in a school, understand why the school is struggling, and work with the school to get it back on its feet. Acknowledging that was unclear, greater clarity in division 8 of the bill has been given to the new provisions and powers to conduct routine assessments or special investigations.
Inspection powers are broadened to provide for both periodic inspections and reviews of non-government schools, and for investigations of non-compliance with the schools registration requirements or conditions. The Northern Territory Education Act is enacted by this parliament, and we have a minister for Education. The Education Act in the Territory registers all Territory schools, both government and non-government. Those registration requirements have been updated and refreshed in this legislation regarding thresholds a non-government school needs to meet to become registered. The parliament has a responsibility to provide for a quality education system to all Territory students, whether they are in the government system or the non-government system.
My government and I, as Chief Minister, strongly support parental choice in making those decisions. This government has a very good track record in supporting our non-government schools, particularly in capital infrastructure and ongoing per student funding.
Given it is our responsibility to provide a quality education system for all students, whether they are in government or non-government schools, the issue of ongoing accountability in the quality of education, the real issue, which is the matter of great public debate at the moment, is transparency in the performance of schools. We have had an almighty debate nationally about transparency and school performance, particularly student achievements in the NAPLAN testing at Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. It is healthy to have a public debate about the quality of education, and healthy to have transparency regarding school performance. In the New Year, a website will be unveiled by the Australian government where parents will be able to see how both government and non-government schools are performing relative and compared to their demographic makeup for the community they draw students from.
It is not about highlighting failing schools. It is about understanding schools which are performing well within a certain demographic section, why those schools are performing well, and replicating it to other schools to lift school performance for the benefit, ultimately, of all our students.
I will speak with Michael Avery after the passage of this bill, however this should not be interpreted, in any way, as a stick that the CE of the department of Education has to wield over non-government schools. I am not suggesting it has been interpreted that way, but I want to make it very clear this is not the intent of this legislation. This is about clarifying who has responsibility and accountability for intervening, understanding why a school may be failing, and what we need to do to turn the school around.
To deal with transparency issues, I go to the explanatory memorandum released in support of this bill. The proposed section 68 establishes the CEOs power to appoint assessors, and he may limit the assessor’s authority to routine assessment or special investigations on a particular aspect. Under the proposed subsection 68(4) the minister may establish and maintain a panel of nominees for appointment, invite nominations to the panel from the non-government schools to provide a fair representation of the non-government school sector, and direct the CEO to choose appointees, or a specified proportion of appointments, from that panel.
I give an undertaking to the Leader of the Opposition and to the parliament today, the minister will establish and maintain a panel of nominees. I will be corresponding with the Non-Government School Ministerial Advisory Council asking it to put forward nominations for the panel, and instruct the CE, as I have power to do under this act, to choose appointees, or a specified proportion of appointments, from that panel. I have put my commitment on the public record in relation to Michael Avery’s concerns.
With regard to transparency and fairness in an investigation, I go to the proposed section 68C, which requires an assessor, who has completed a routine assessment, or a special investigation, to prepare a report, and give a copy of that report, in draft form, to the governing body of the school, and allow the school the opportunity to respond within a specified time. There is no ambush; it is not about the CE having an agenda to deregister a school without any opportunity for reasonableness and fairness to come into play. If an investigation is required, the report, in draft form, has to go to the governing body - if it was a Catholic school it would go to the Office of Catholic Education - and allow the school an opportunity to respond within a time frame. The assessor must then prepare a final report taking into account comments made by the school in response; so the assessor must take into account the comments of the school in regards to his or her final report, and the final report must then be given to the CEO.
I believe this is about an ongoing national agenda on behalf of a quality education system, regardless of whether it is in the government or non-government sector. It clarifies roles and responsibilities in that sector, and increases and improves the transparency agenda in the performance of our schools, so we can have an informed public debate about improving the quality of education to the benefit of all our students across the Northern Territory.
It is an exciting time in education and, with the reform agenda through the national government and COAGs three national partnership agreements around education, we have significant additional funding coming to our education system, and a real focus on low socio-economic and disadvantaged schools. The Australian government’s stimulus package, which is providing for upgrades around the Northern Territory in both non-government and government schools, is unprecedented. As I visit schools in the Northern Territory, the excitement amongst our school communities, about the increased funding from the stimulus package, is absolutely palpable, in both sectors. It is an exciting time in education. Governments around Australia are on a reform agenda to improve education and transparency. This legislation is part of the overall thrust to improve the quality of education in the Northern Territory, and improve transparency.
In concluding my remarks, I reiterate the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition. Our non-government school sector does a remarkable job throughout the Northern Territory operating schools, not only in Darwin, but also in our urban, regional and remote centres. The non-government school system, in some parts of Australia, is seen to be elitist and Ivy League; a view I do not subscribe to. We do not have that in the Territory; we have a non-government sector which does a tremendous job in providing choice to parents and diversity in education, supported by our diverse community in the Northern Territory.
With those concluding remarks, I thank the Opposition Leader for his support for the bill, his contributions to debate, and the issues he has raised. I hope I have satisfied the Leader of the Opposition; I have heard his concerns and I will use my powers under the act to ensure the non-government school sector is fairly represented in any investigation which may occur into a non-government school.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Education and Training)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
VOLATILE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 71)
(Serial 71)
Continued from 20 October 2009.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is great to be in Alice Springs. I see we have captured the imagination of people by the thousands today; hopefully it will get better as we go through. I welcome the General Manager of Tourism Central Australia, Mr Peter Grigg, who is in the gallery, and Cate Povey from the Chamber of Commerce. It is great to have people from Central Australia enjoying the sittings.
This is, obviously, very important legislation, so I have made some rather detailed notes. They are my own confidential notes, for the information of members opposite. Rather than commit this to memory, it is important I have some notes so we can get through this.
I am pleased to speak on this bill. I know the scourge of petrol sniffing in Central Australia is alive and well. Anyone who saw the acclaimed film Samson and Delilah may have been exposed to the scourge of petrol sniffing. Many Australians watching this around the country are not aware of what we face in the Northern Territory, particularly in Central Australia; their eyes may have been widely opened.
I hope it did shock those people, and I hope it did draw their attention to the serious problem it is. The film did highlight what a scourge this is in too many of our communities in the Northern Territory.
Petrol sniffing, volatile substance abuse, the whole gamut, has taken far too many lives. It not only impacts on the user, it also impacts on their families, their friends, and the broader community, and it can feed into some of those broader issues such as law and order, but particularly family and friends of people addicted to or have a life fuelled by volatile substances. Aboriginal communities are the worst affected.
It does seem the introduction of Opal fuel has seen a significant reduction across many parts of Central Australia. The Top End of Australia, and through the Kimberley, has seen changes in community behaviour and, some might say, the tide has turned. There was a federal government initiative in 2006 by the Honourable Tony Abbott. I have mentioned his name in this House before when it comes to matters of health. I believe he was a dynamic and visionary federal health minister.
Reading from his media release of July 2006:
- The Commonwealth government will fund the supply of non-sniffable Opal fuel in all 10 petrol stations in Alice Springs to help reduce the incidence of petrol sniffing in Central Australia.
It goes on to say:
- By supplying petrol bowsers in Alice Springs with non-sniffable fuel, sniffers will be deterred from travelling into Alice Springs. Cutting out supply will make it much harder for sniffers to get access to petrol.
There is no doubt about that; no one would disagree. It is interesting the Volatile Substance Act was brought forward by the member for Arafura in 2004, and in 2005 it was debated very robustly in this Chamber. This was before the roll-out of Opal fuel.
The most recent parliamentary inquiry into volatile substance abuse, and in particular petrol sniffing, was conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, and the committee’s report was released earlier this year. I will quote from some of that report:
- While there is a lack of verifiable data on the number of people engaging in petrol sniffing, there is consistent evidence provided to the committee that, overall, petrol sniffing has declined significantly in Central Australia over the last two years.
The report also notes, in 2006, an estimated 600 Aboriginal people in the Central Desert region of the NT were sniffing petrol on a regular basis.
A July 2007 study estimated the number had reduced to 244. There has been a significant reduction. You could suggest the Volatile Substance Act introduced by this government in 2005, coupled with the approach by the federal government to roll-out Opal fuel across communities in the Northern Territory, has seen a significant reduction from 600 to 244.
The impact of the reduction of substance abuse is most poignant when expressed by those closely involved with the problem. During the Senate inquiry hearings in Alice Springs, Blair McFarland,from the Central Australian Youth Link-Up Service, described the change, and I will quote him:
- There used to be hundreds and hundreds of sniffers in the remote communities. When you went to Papunya, people there were talking about when there were 100 petrol sniffers in that community, and now there is zero.
- That is very consistently the story through the remote communities we work with. By a combination of Opal and community action, the number has been reduced to zero in pretty much all the communities we work with.
I know the member for Macdonnell would attest to that change, particularly in the community of Papunya.
However, volatile substance abuse is not limited to Central Australia. Outbreaks have been reported in Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Darwin, and Tennant Creek. The ABC reported, on 12 November, that petrol, glue, and paint sniffing had been wiped out. I hope any spike in volatile substance abuse can be quickly contained and eradicated.
I am concerned the Senate inquiry report noted marijuana use had been on the increase. A quote from the report heard:
- … marijuana use has been on the increase and has generally been the substance used in substitution for petrol.
It was also noted during the inquiry, petrol sniffing had increased in some places where alcohol had been banned. This says that we, as a parliament, cannot be complacent about this. We have issues with alcohol and we have issues with volatile substances. We push down one thing; something else pops up. Efforts to eradicate volatile substance abuse needs to break the cycle of drug dependency. I believe that is a no-brainer.
It would seem, albeit anecdotally, in some communities drug use has been a revolving door, as people shift between inhalants, alcohol, and marijuana, depending on the access to those drugs. If this is the case, we are yet to break the cycle.
I will turn to the legislation; and the Opposition will not be opposing this bill. Our view is the Territory needs legislation which not only deals with volatile substances, but also other substances, and alcohol. As noted earlier, there is a cycle of abuse between a wide variety of substances and legislation needs to address this cycle. In the New Year I will bring forward a bill which will address volatile substance abuse and alcohol abuse more comprehensively.
We will not be opposing this bill; however we do have a number of concerns and will raise them with the minister during the committee stage. These include questions regarding the number of definitional matters, treatment programs, time frames and processes.
I thought the minister’s second reading speech was rather dispassionate, as opposed to the very passionate speech from the member for Arafura in 2004. It did seem robotic to me, considering the problem we face, particularly in Central Australia. I hope this is not a Top End versus Central Australian matter; a minister based in the Top End does not fully grasp the issues of substance abuse. If one was to take the passion he put into his speech, one might be forgiven for thinking that is the case. I am prepared to give the minister the benefit of the doubt, and will run through a detailed committee stage on this bill.
After receiving an electronic briefing, at my request, from the department, some stats indicated: of the 198 people approved by the minister for assessment, mostly referred by NT Police and Health carers, 48 are undergoing formal assessment; 87 people ceased sniffing at referral; three entered treatment voluntarily; 11 entered treatment through the criminal justice system; eight moved interstate; one passed away; and six were found unsuitable for mandatory treatment. A total of 38 court orders, relating to 30 individuals, have been issued for treatment, nineteen of whom were adults, and 11 were under 18 years of age.
On the whole, that would appear to be relatively positive; a step in the right direction. I had to pry that from the minister. There was nothing about the positive impacts of this bill during the minister’s rather passionless second reading speech. Nevertheless, we will get to that throughout the committee stage.
I have to comment on the department of Health’s Annual Report regarding substance abuse. I believe it has been nothing short of appalling. There is no data whatsoever to show where we are tracking when it comes to volatile substance abuse in the Northern Territory; it is very ordinary indeed.
This bill has bipartisan support, but we do not know whether it has made inroads into the scourge of volatile substance abuse. I believe that is an issue for the minister, and for the government; get the data out, so we can see how this is tracking.
I add that there have been 265 referrals since the act came into force. We are not told how many have entered compulsory treatment, or how many treatments have been completed. It was mentioned in the briefing provided to me by the minister; but I do believe there should be data in the annual report so we can see how it is going.
In conclusion, the opposition supports any attempt to get people off the streets and into treatment. In no uncertain terms, we have made it very clear how we feel about treatment, and mandatory treatment. I know the government does not support mandatory treatment, but I hope it will do whatever it can to strengthen its own legislation to get as many people into treatment as possible.
This is very important legislation, particularly for the Central Australian members, and I hope the member for Arafura, who brought this on passionately in 2004, will also speak on it.
_____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mrs Dawn McCarthy, the wife of the Minister for Transport, and also to my son, Alex Aagaard, who is a resident of Alice Springs. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments to the Volatile Substance Abuse bill. It was interesting to listen to the member for Greatorex, and it is fantastic to hear the opposition is giving support to this important legislation.
You are correct, member for Greatorex; there was robust debate when this was introduced in 2004. It was breaking new ground and I remember when the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community Report titled Petrol Sniffing in Remote Northern Territory Communities looked at the issue of petrol sniffing, cannabis use, and alcohol abuse, there were a number of recommendations made.
Having had involvement in that committee, and travelling the breadth of the Northern Territory, we recognised the scourge of petrol sniffing in our communities and the need to act swiftly and to go where no legislators had gone before: to the issue of mandatory treatment in relation to volatile substance abuse.
I acknowledge the sentiments of the member for Greatorex regarding mandatory treatment. It is something I believe should be the process for volatile substance abuse, and we could use the same process within the Volatile Substance Abuse Act to cover alcohol and other substances. At the time, there were many critics saying you cannot force people into treatment, or require compulsory treatment. We were coming from an area of very little research; it had not previously happened in the Northern Territory. However, we did enter that area.
Information obtained from the minister shows there were 264 referrals for compulsory treatment under the legislation. Of those 264 people, 198 have been approved by the minister for assessment. Most referrals were from the Northern Territory Police or health centres. This is 264 petrol sniffers who would otherwise be in the communities creating the problems we have seen for a long time. It is not only the cost to the individual in irreparable brain damage, and the cost to the health system, but also the cost to the families and the communities involved.
At one point, in my electorate, there were 60 active sniffers in a community with a population of 800 people. You can imagine the siege under which the community was operating. There was no peace and no quality of life for families living in the community. Maningrida, another major community in my electorate, with over 2000 people, has been working to wipe out the scourge of petrol sniffing since 1986.
Visiting communities in Central Australia I saw the devastation on families, the loss of life, and it was something which motivated me.
As a minister, you bring in much legislation, but there is always legislation which leaves its mark and makes you feel your time has been worthwhile, and you have addressed something not touched for a long time; it was groundbreaking. I also acknowledge my former Cabinet colleagues at the time, particularly the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and the former Deputy Chief Minister, Syd Stirling, in introducing this legislation.
For the first time, a Labor Cabinet had committed quite substantial funding for an expansion of treatment services, and capital funding to ensure there were facilities and staff with the expertise to deal with this issue. It is one thing to enact legislation, order compulsory treatment and ensure people go through this process - whether it is voluntary or a court order - it is another thing to put money on the table and ensure those services are resourced and equipped to facilitate the legislation.
We still have a long way to go in Central Australia. It has worked well with the community management plans, and ensuring we can deal with a whole of community approach. We also need to ensure we have authorised officers. Concerns have been raised with me where people felt the police should not be involved in this issue. I believe it is very important to ensure the police are a critical part of this legislation, to ensure enforcement of the act does happen, that we get people into treatment swiftly and the police maintain their support within those management areas so we do not see this scourge returning.
The difference between Central Australia and the Top End is the issue of Opal roll-out, and we need to work with the federal government on this. We have seen the successful roll-out of Opal in and around our remote communities. We need to work with the federal government and ensure we receive the subsidy promised by the Howard government, which I believe was around $8m when first proposed. There are still many sniffers in Top End communities, and if we think it does not exist in Darwin, we are kidding ourselves. It exists in Alice Springs, and there are sniffers around Darwin; we need to be very vigilant.
CAAPS in Darwin has been funded to receive petrol sniffers from communities. Some are from my electorate and they go to Darwin for treatment. We have to start looking at the Mt Theo program, and Ilperle, in Central Australia, where sniffers are taken out to those areas. We do not have those facilities in the Top End. I hear from young petrol sniffers and their families in my electorate, they are not going into treatment, or running away from treatment, in Darwin because it is too far away and it is isolated. They leave the service in Darwin, fall through the gap, and enter into the cycle of destruction which happens when people are caught up in Darwin without any support programs.
I have seen, in another community in my electorate, the tragedy of three young men who climbed into a container to get access to petrol. I saw the devastation in the community from the deaths of those young sniffers. These things are still occurring; it does not mean things are not working. We need to be vigilant. I have said previously we may see tragedies continue, but we must remain vigilant to ensure one day, hopefully, we can wipe out the scourge of petrol sniffing.
I acknowledge the work of CAYLUS and Bushmob and a number of other groups in Central Australia, and the tireless work of the support staff in those organisations and treatment centres in Alice Springs, Ilperle and Mt Theo. These people are the unsung heroes; they are the ones at the coalface and have made this legislation work. They see success with some people and not others. The Northern Territory police have been fantastic in working with this legislation and the communities to make it work.
I acknowledge the work and dedication of Jo Townsend and her staff in the department of Health, who have worked tirelessly to address this most important matter. Since 2004, they have had ups and downs, but I could not finish this without acknowledging Jo and her staff, and everyone across the alcohol and other drugs section. Often, we thank everyone else, but I believe we need that resource. I know Jo has been an absolute champion. If you are going to get something through you need to have those champions in the department. I want to acknowledge Jo for her work, and being the champion in the department to make this happen.
I say to the CLP, it is fantastic to see we now have complete bipartisan support for these amendments. The member for Greatorex said he will work through some of those issues with the minister. It is fantastic they are supporting these important amendments, which will certainly make the process under the legislation work better and faster. At the end of the day, it is the people on the receiving end of those treatment orders who need to be put through the system quickly.
I do not have anything further to say other than I fully support the amendments to the Volatile Substance Abuse Act, thank you.
__________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Alice Springs High School Year 9/2 class, with teachers, Ms Marg McHughes and Miss Sarah Edwards, together with Inclusion Support Assistants, Ms Davina Edwards and Mr Charlie Larkins. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear.
__________________
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments. I will talk about how this has personally affected me.
The huge amount of crisis and substance abuse we saw, not just in Central Australia and in the Top End, but in the Anangu Yankunytjatjara lands in South Australia - and I take this opportunity, first and foremost, to thank NPY, CAYLUS, of course, and the Northern Territory Police. It was a gut-wrenching epidemic in remote Aboriginal communities; it was like a bushfire, which started in the Ngaanyatjarra, in South Australian lands at the bottom of Western Australia and South Australia. At that time, we did not have sniffing in Hermannsburg and Papunya.
There were no rehabilitation centres, and families were sending their children to communities where families could look after them. At that stage we did not know, or understand, that while we were moving one or two sniffers around from Ernabella to Papunya, we were lighting bushfires in our own communities. Families struggling with these children who had substance abuse problems - real sniffers - would ring families at Papunya and say: ‘Would you be able to look after Tom, who is 11 years old, for a couple of weeks. We are having huge problems. We cannot tolerate his behaviour’. We would say: ‘Yes, we will take Tom’; and Tom would come to Papunya, set up a gang of 10 or 15 and, in front of our eyes, there were 10 or 15 sniffers overnight. We would struggle in our own community and ring up other families in Hermannsburg or Yuendumu and say: ‘Can you take Alison and Barb over to Yuendumu? We are really struggling with the problem’.
We did this unintentionally because we were struggling to comprehend the huge problems we had in communities and, at that time, there was no help whatsoever.
Even the Northern Territory Police were struggling to understand. We had children in our communities who had broken into the school or into shops at night, and we would take them to the council offices the next morning and attempt to reprimand these children for their behaviour, and reprimand the families, and we would be threatened with suicide by these children: ‘You have a meeting again about us and we will hang ourselves’. I saw my little nephew hanging outside my brother’s house, and another one passed away in the lounge room of my brother’s house. They are the tragedies which impact not only on immediate families, but the whole community; the whole community suffers through this bushfire - and it is a bushfire.
I take this opportunity to thank CAYLUS and NPY for bringing it to the attention, not only of the Northern Territory parliament, but also the Australian people, because I believe this is what is needed. It needs comprehensive support not just from Territory parliament, but from federal parliament. One thing which really frustrates me is we continue to do review after review. If we look at substance abuse in general throughout the Northern Territory, how many committees have we had – federal and Northern Territory committees – questioning parents and questioning communities about substance abuse and the problems it creates.
Opal has had a huge impact in communities; we do not have kids sniffing petrol in our community at Papunya anymore - none whatsoever. However, 100% of those children, from the age of eight-years old, now smoke ganja; they are full-time ganja users. Are we going to set up a committee to look at ganja? We have not looked at substance abuse in its entirety – ganja, alcohol, petrol, glue sniffing, pencil sniffing. We have not had a holistic look at substance abuse on communities; will we have another committee formed by the Northern Territory government to look at ganja use? Will there be a federal inquiry into ganja use?
We have massive problems with mental illness amongst our Indigenous children and adolescents. We have gone back to square one, where these people who are on ganja everyday are abusing the same people the petrol sniffers abused 10 years ago - their grandparents and their parents - and children are struggling because their parents are now using the 50% of their money not quarantined to buy ganja.
If you are looking for people in my community of Papunya or Hermannsburg, you will find young children, without adult supervision, sitting inside their yard. If you ask them where their parents are, they will make you the ganja sign to say they are bonging on inside. These are five, six, seven-year-old children who already know the signs of a bong. This should be a huge concern to this parliament; a huge concern to us, not just as politicians, but as human beings, as parents, as grandparents. We need to address this issue.
I want the minister to set up a committee to investigate the seriousness of ganja use in all remote Aboriginal communities. Money which is not quarantined and art money that grandparents or mothers get is now going straight to the dealers of marijuana. It is a huge problem in our communities.
I can stand here, truthfully, and say to you every single one of my nieces and nephews are ganja users. That is a huge problem. I see my own brother struggling to tell his children it is not good to use ganja; they should go back to school. There are now eight-year-olds on ganja in communities. It is a huge problem, and what we need to do is deal with the problem holistically, rather than only looking at petrol sniffing. While we were concentrating on petrol sniffing, they were starting to use ganja because they saw us coming: ‘They are starting to get rid of petrol; let us move on to something else’. These are smart people.
We do not have a female policewoman on communities; you have two male police officers. Male police officers cannot search females inside a car. It is the female passengers inside those cars who carry the ganja. They carry it in their bra and in the side of their knickers. The police are aware now of all the tricks in remote Aboriginal communities such as putting the bags of ganja between the radiator and the front of the car, and inside the flat tyres, so the spare tyres also carry ganja. The other trick is picking up a road-kill kangaroo, emptying the guts of the kangaroo, and filling the kangaroo with either grog or ganja and stitching it back up. That passes any road block, unless the community police are aware. Those are some of the ways they bring ganja in. However, more often it is carried by female passengers inside cars going into remote Aboriginal communities.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind guests in the galleries that phones must be turned off, please, and honourable members as well.
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, it is a struggle for communities to deal with these issues with their children. It is not just an issue for individual parents; in remote Aboriginal communities the whole community gets pulled in when there is a problem with either petrol sniffing, ganja and, of course, alcohol. With the Northern Territory intervention, we saw relief from the amount of alcohol going into communities. I was a major supporter of the Northern Territory intervention. One of the failures of the intervention was it did not include Alice Springs. They put federal police on communities, and the government business mangers - which we refer to now as the Gingerbread men.
People were placed on communities but they did not put any support mechanisms in towns like Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, and Tennant Creek. Alcoholics, petrol sniffers or drug addicts were running away from the police in communities into towns which did not have proper resources in place. It would have been absolutely wonderful to have a general business manager, and federal police officer, based in Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Alice Springs to help the town camps. You have had a huge increase of people moving into these towns. We have seen it in Alice Springs; it really is a major crisis.
We see them every day in the Todd mall. These people are running away because the communities have been locked up and are now good communities for children to grow up. There is a little grog and ganja getting in, however most of the time these people are in the hub towns. I believe it is a really serious matter which we have to address. I would like the government to take notice, and talk to your federal colleagues, to see whether there can be support put into towns like Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Katherine, and Darwin, so we have the same resources, such as the federal police and the community business managers, because I believe that will alleviate some of the problems we see.
I would also like to advise the minister, when we talk about amendments, we have to look at a major program which encompasses not just the individual abuser, but the whole family and community. While we are dealing with one identified substance abuser, we are not aware that two siblings are also abusing a substance. We need programs which include the entire family, not just individual substance abusers.
In closing, I say, let us not have review, after review, after review. We have heard in this parliament, over many decades, the suffering of people in remote Aboriginal communities from substance abuse. We have many hard-working people; Blair McFarland, Barry Abbotts, the Northern Territory Police, NPY, women who stood up against men and spoke up about problems in the Ngaanyatjarra Lands in South Australia. These people deserve help from this parliament to deal with the serious problems existing on communities. It is a gut-wrenching problem which will leave scars in communities and with parents forever.
I can tell you, even now, the loss of those children through substance abuse and hanging themselves, the scars of those deaths will remain with people like me, and the whole community, for a long, long time. We all have to go through the healing process. I believe a serious government would endorse a program around the family, and the whole community.
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of three participants from Steps Employment and Training, together with their trainer, Mr Duncan Rae. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will not take too much time dealing with this particular issue; I only want to make a few brief points.
However, before I commence I wish to acknowledge the speech made by the member for Macdonnell. As the former member for Macdonnell, I understand and recall having seen exactly what she described over the years. Moreover, as a former police officer, who on occasion worked in remote communities around Central Australia, I have also seen the things she describes.
I am, nevertheless, struck by her comments regarding how one form of substance abuse is replaced with another. That is true for the human condition; it is not particular, necessarily, to the Aboriginal kids who live in remote Central Australia. If you introduce a system where you tell people they are useless, and then give them money on a fortnightly basis and encourage them to sit down and do nothing, you will get the same results. I suggest what you see happening in Papunya, you could find happening in Brixton, Brooklyn or, for that matter, in some of the inner suburbs of Sydney.
I have talked about this relentlessly over the years, however one of the greatest issues in remote communities, is the lack of gainful employment. I still find it staggering that you can step from one side of a barbed wire fence, on which a cattle station operates, creates wealth and generates employment for the people who manage that land, then step over the boundary and you enter into the Third World, which is physically no different to the land on the other side of the boundary, what is different, is the system of management in place.
I am not suggesting getting rid of traditional systems of land management, I am encouraging, and continue to complain - as I have complained for a decade now - that land management systems in remote Aboriginal communities will ultimately end up leading to consequences which have been described by the member for Macdonnell.
Learnt helplessness is helplessness. I recall a work called Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher of some note, who made the observation, and I am paraphrasing him slightly: life without law is nasty, brutish and short. Aboriginal kids living in these communities do not pay much attention to the law of their forebears, and frankly, they do not pay much attention to European law; they are lawless. I could not think of a better way to describe some of their lives, other than nasty, brutish and short. It is something I would desperately like to see change, and it is taking way too long.
We are still engaged in the politics of blame and the ‘black armband of history’, when we should be ensuring systems of economic advancement exist in remote areas which involve Aboriginal people. At the moment we build around Aboriginal people great walls of protection through instruments such as the Land Rights Act. The problem with building those walls is that walls which protect also become prisons. What occurs in some of these remote communities is the Aboriginal people who live there are being imprisoned by the walls which are supposed to protect them.
Aboriginal people, like anyone else, deserve to have a fair bite of the economic cherry in this country. The land management systems available to them should be similar to the land management systems available to the rest of the country, so investment money does not run away to other places but goes to these communities so jobs can be generated. It is being done in the mining industry.
The member for Stuart will be aware of the jobs for Aboriginal people which have been generated in the Granites gold mine, by Newmont Mining. On the Tiwi Islands there is a forest. In spite of what has happened to Great Southern, the asset is still there and will continue to employ Aboriginal people. Anindilyakwa Land Council has a resort which is employing Aboriginal people. Investment money comes into remote communities and generates wealth; it has to happen more and much more frequently.
Why can we not see Aboriginal people, until recently, and as a direct result of the intervention, being able to buy homes on their own land? I bought my house in Darwin; I got a bank loan, and I filled it with the goods we come to know, love and enjoy, such as plasma screen televisions, stoves, and stereo systems. It is not available to Aboriginal people who live in many of these remote communities; even if they worked, what is the money for? They have to be allowed to build a future for themselves and their families as a result of economic development and real jobs.
Why is there not a McDonalds in Wadeye? Without entering into the debate about Aboriginal diet, there should be multiple shops and grocery stores in remote Aboriginal communities which do well. That has not occurred over the last 30 years because we have been trying to rescue Aboriginal people from themselves. Well, bully for us; what a great job we have done. With friends like us who needs enemies?
I point out to this government that whilst it continues to dress up as the champion and protector of kids on remote communities, there is always a long gap between its actualities and its rhetoric. They talk about having dealt with interested parties, interested groups, how to manage legislation, and how the legislation operates, yet what we have before us is an amendment to an act which is only a few years old.
One of the things I complained of in 2006, when I was the member for Macdonnell, was that this legislation created a system which necessitated the arrest of a petrol sniffer on a multitude of occasions to make the legislation operate. One of the lead points of difference between us and the government was that petrol sniffing should be an offence. There was a straightforward reason for this: if you made it an offence there was a protocol in place to deal with these offences, namely, you arrested the person, took them into custody and they were either bailed to appear in a court or, more likely, would be held in custody until the next court sitting.
If that happened in a remote community, that person had to be transported to Alice Springs if they remained in custody. That person could then be dealt with according to law which, in these instances, usually reflected a guilty plea.
The effect of that system would be, through the provisions of the Sentencing Act, a magistrate could say: you are sentenced to this, that and the other, namely, a program of intervention to deal with the petrol sniffing issue - there would have been one arrest. Under the system proposed in 2006, because we did not want to generate a criminal record for Aboriginal kids, the government introduced a system which ultimately led to a multitude of arrests in the way it was applied.
Under the system proposed by the government, you picked up a sniffer, you could not put them into cells, but you held them in some form of custody, which was never made clear, and you were allowed to use reasonable force, however the use of handcuffs and those things was really fudged by the government at the time. It demonstrated to me, when this was last debated, a disconnect between the government and how policies are enforced. The police officers sitting in the gallery today would know the use of reasonable force implies the use of force to produce an outcome. That includes handcuffs, cells, and other forms of restraint; in fact, reasonable force even goes to the full extent of lethal force under certain circumstances.
The government of the day, including the minister, when these questions were put to her, was very squeamish about this because she did not want to be the minister responsible for passing legislation which could see Aboriginal kids being put in handcuffs. I invite members to read the debates of the time and you will see the difficulty the minister had. The reason I raise this issue is because I also raised the issue of multiple arrest. You arrest an Aboriginal kid once, drag him in, release him, apply for the order, obtain the order, grab the kid again and drag him in.
From the perspective of an Aboriginal kid in Papunya, I would suspect being arrested for a criminal offence or being arrested for the purposes of an intervention order of this nature is not particularly clear. I suspect with many Aboriginal kids, that little nuance would be lost; all they would know is they are being arrested by the police.
However, under the soft and cuddly system applied by this government, they would be arrested twice, when, under the system which already existed – that is, charge, arrest and/or bail - they were arrested once. I find it curious, three years later, in spite of my raising the issue at the time -- and I will quote myself from the 2005 debates:
- That means the relevant person will then be at liberty to continue engaging in self-harm or, if that person is not at liberty, that person must be in custody of some sort. They may not necessarily be locked up in a cell, but it is a deprivation of their liberty in one fashion or another, which is other than a normal liberty that people enjoy. Consequently, the minister is suggesting that we apprehend, then release, and then, I imagine with a treatment order, re-apprehend.
I was criticised, at the time by the government, for making such an assertion. However, understanding the practicalities of how these systems are put in place, one would hope the government would have listened to what was being told to them at the time, and avoided this unnecessary double apprehension of people. However, the point is, while the government is too busy putting these programs together and praising themselves by way of media release on what a great and terrific job they are doing, they are not listening to what is going on in this House or the experience of people who have dealt with these issues.
I find it curious now, in the second reading speech in the current debate amending the law we passed in 2005, where the government refused to listen to this side of the House, the government is now introducing this bill for the following purposes, and I quote the second reading speech:
- The bill also revises arrangements for assessing clients and making application to the court for treatment orders through proposed amendments to sections 33 and 34. The multiple approval steps in the act require a separate approval processes to (1) conduct the assessment, and (2) apply to the court for a treatment order, have been collapsed into a seamless process for approval by the Chief Health Officer ...
In other words, they are now addressing in this amendment the very issue raised three years ago by me and other members on this side of the House. Why are they attempting to fix up legislation not drafted in the first place? They refused to listen! That is truly the hallmark of this government: this government does not listen to people.
When they start to listen, they may earn their stripes as a government. At the moment, they are not doing that. As they continue to fall apart and bicker amongst themselves, the real effect will be Territorians will not be well served, or not served at all, by a government too busy looking at its own navel to care about the effects its indecisions and carelessness are having on Territorians.
However, it worries me that we continually concentrate on an area of substance abuse, when we talk about treatment orders and court orders, which are important, because we know substance abuse has been the scourge of many Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. We should not be too narrow in our thinking to realise there are challenges in relation to how we solve those problems, and the member for Port Darwin raised the issues of employment. Abuse of drugs does not have any borders when it comes to income. We read recently about Andre Agassi, a millionaire many times over, who admits he used ice, or other drugs. We have heard it from other very rich people; they have used cocaine.
We have to be careful, when having this debate, we do not start talking about the ‘them’, which, from my point of view, might be Aboriginal people. We have to realise our society has a problem with the abuse of drugs. Marijuana, for instance, is not regarded as a volatile substance. Yet, as the member for Arafura said, her community on the Tiwi Islands, at one stage had the highest rate of suicides for young people in the world, due to the abuse of marijuana.
As a Territory, what is one of the largest causes of imprisonment apart from domestic violence? Alcohol, which, in many cases, is reflected in domestic violence. Where, in Australia, has the highest consumption of alcohol per head of population? It is the Territory. What is one of the major factors for fatalities on our roads? Alcohol. It does not distinguish between living on an outstation near Yuendumu, or at Bayview, Darwin. When we debate these issues, we have to be careful we do not preach to people, and look at ourselves as a whole community.
If we do not tackle the problems of alcohol we are kidding ourselves. Alcohol is a legal substance, it is popular, is worth millions of dollars to breweries and the advertising industry, it costs millions of dollars in health, in keeping people in prison, and those social impacts we do not put dollar signs on; the abuse of women and children. However, we seem to turn away from a realistic debate on the issue.
We look today at the act before us, which talks about treatment orders, and enforcement of those treatment orders. Have we really put those to people who cannot help themselves when it comes to alcohol abuse? I have stated previously, what is the point in putting people through alcohol rehabilitation courses, time and time again? The revolving door syndrome, and they are back out on the street again. Is there not a time when the government has a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves? We talk about that in this bill, but do we really do it when it comes to the drug which causes most problems in our society? Do we shy away from it when it is too difficult, because the football club or the cricket club relies on income from the sale of alcohol? You would not want to stop it; we know what effect it has.
The previous member for Katherine would say the Katherine Football Association did not have alcohol at its venues. Besides having relatively small crowds, it had a relatively small income. I believe this is where the government has to help. It has to show it supports groups which make a decision not to rely on income from alcohol to subsidise its sport.
You only have to go to major sporting events in Alice Springs and Darwin to realise how much money comes from the sale of alcohol. Do we worry about it? No, we say it is fine because it is the culture; yet we turn a blind eye to the effects it has on our community.
It is time we did set up special areas for people who cannot help themselves when it comes to alcohol abuse. Perhaps small farms near towns. I would not call them prisons; I would call them places of refuge for people who need help. It can be ordered by a magistrate and they can live there, receive medical treatment, may be taught literacy and numeracy, can be given work in a garden, they can learn woodwork or mechanical skills in conjunction with their education. Relatives can visit once a week. If we do nothing, we will still see people on the streets; we will still see people complaining about black people humbugging them.
How are we going to help those people? It is not being paternalistic; it is not being black or white. If people are continually abusing alcohol, if they are not willing to have treatment or have been through treatment so many times it has no effect at all, I believe our government has to do something for the benefit of those people, and the benefit of society.
We are dealing with difficult issues. Substance abuse, whether volatile or not, whether legal or not, is a major problem in the Northern Territory. We spend millions telling people not to smoke; I believe we started on the wrong drug. Although the anti-tobacco people may scoff at me, I have not seen too many car accidents caused by tobacco smoking. I have not seen domestic violence, or children being abused by smoking. We spend huge amounts of money and effort, we wiped out nearly all forms of tobacco advertising, we had huge anti-smoking programs; did we do it when it came to alcohol? The drug which puts more people in prison than anything else, the drug which kills more people on the road, the drug which causes more violence? I believe we had the world upside down. Now, at last, we are looking at the problem.
When it comes to alcohol, we tend to only look at Aboriginal people. Look at the number of young people who abuse alcohol. The federal government is starting to look at it. I know the amount of alcohol consumed by young people is enormous. It is not only for entertainment; it is simply to get drunk; to get plastered. People do not want to talk too much about it because the problem is in the streets of Alice Springs and Darwin or in the bush. The reality is our community has a major problem with alcohol and because it is popular and it is worth money to the breweries, we do not want to change it.
Finally, I would like to say there are many issues in relation to substance abuse. We should be highlighting the good work many people do like CAAPS, Mt Theo, and Ilperle.
To BP; we have talked about Opal fuel. I was on the Substance Abuse committee when we were discussing this, and BP was already working on a non-volatile petrol substance, Opal. It had its critics, whether your car worked well and it was difficult to find. I believe we should acknowledge BP, which produced a substance that made a change, and did something for the health of Aboriginal people. I believe it should be recognised.
Finally, when looking at the issues, let us support those people who are working hard. Something the government can do is work on long-term programs with goals people have to achieve.
I was at the Gap on Friday looking at the youth facilities. I asked the manager how long she was contracted for. One year. How do you have programs for youth over one year? Youth does not last for one year; youth lasts forever. The government can show it is committed by giving long-term funding. Mt Theo, Ilperle, and other places need to get long-term financial support from the government; set up achievable goals, because you need incentives so people do not take it easy, they need incentives; you need to show you are achieving things. Give those people certainty in the way you fund them.
Madam Speaker, I support the amendments to this bill.
________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Alcoota School middle years classes with teachers, Mr Vern Hardie, the Teaching Principal, and Assistant Teacher, Ms Mill Savage, and daughter, Yaz Hardie.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. I particularly thank the member for Greatorex, because, I have said many times, health issues are not issues for political debate and argument; we need bipartisan support. I was very pleased to hear him saying today the opposition will support this bill.
This is a very important bill. I also thank the member for Macdonnell, because she told some personal stories. I believe every member has his or her personal stories. Every person here, because we represent the electorate, might know people who have problems with substance abuse, people in our families who take drugs, or people who have gone to prison for those reasons. There are quite a few of us who can say: ‘Yes, we do have these people in our own immediate family’.
I also thank the member for Nelson. He is absolutely right; the worst drug in the world is alcohol. It is insidious, you do not understand what it is doing to you until it is too late and, even then, you do not realise what it does to you. We need to have a way to address alcoholism.
With regard to volatile substance abuse, this is not an issue for remote communities or Aboriginal communities; it is an issue for the whole community.
I will give you an example. I heard the member for Macdonnell referring to issues in Papunya. I had the same problem in my electorate in Casuarina when one person brought me some beautifully coloured Coca-Cola bottles. The colour was on the inside because young people go to Bunnings and buy sprays, spray inside the Coca-Cola bottles, and inhale the propellant to get high. This is an issue for a place like Casuarina. This is an issue for a place like Maningrida – and I do not consider Maningrida to be a remote area. Maningrida is only 300 km from Darwin, and about 20 km or 30 km from Jabiru; I do not consider it a remote area. It is an issue for the whole community.
I recall when I was in Port Hedland; I was astounded watching young people with a tin to their nose walking down the street. However, what shocked me more was the young mother who was sitting on the kerb, cuddling a little baby, and over the mouth of the baby was a rug impregnated with petrol to keep it quiet. That was shocking.
I agree with the member for Macdonnell; we did create a problem by moving people from one place to another because we planted the seed of more petrol sniffing in other communities. We also found if we removed people from the community and the community become active, petrol sniffing was eliminated from that community.
We have to work with the communities; we have to work with the families. If we are going to eliminate petrol sniffing from the Northern Territory, we need to have a comprehensive approach.
Sometimes we have to act outside the Territory. I met with CAYLUS on my way to Adelaide for a ministerial council on health. Some of their problems are not in the Territory, they are in Western Australia and Queensland. There is a particular settlement in Queensland, only 20 people live there, but they refuse to have Opal fuel, they still sell unleaded fuel and, guess what happens? People from the Northern Territory drive across and buy unleaded petrol, and they sniff it.
If that settlement replaces unleaded fuel with Opal, the next available unleaded fuel is about a full tank away - 300 km to 400 km. I am going to write to the Queensland minister requesting he orders the removal of unleaded petrol from that area and substitute it with Opal, in order to reduce a problem in the Northern Territory. I believe the problem will stay in Queensland. I will do the same thing with my Western Australian counterpart.
This amendment is timely because we introduced legislation in 2004 and wanted to review it a number of years later to see if it was operating effectively. We have to act quickly, we cannot wait. We cannot have referral after referral. I do not want to sign three statements or three referrals before somebody gets treatment; it has to be done very quickly. Why does the minister have to sign them off? The minister is not a psychologist or psychiatrist; the Chief Medical Officer is the most appropriate person, the most educated person in the department; the person with wide knowledge of medical grounds, in order to assess an application and make a quick decision. By collapsing the different steps in this process will cut time, and sometimes time is vital.
I am very happy to respond to the member for Greatorex, if he has any inquiries, when we go to the committee stage. We have to acknowledge this is not an issue for the Indigenous community alone. I heard, with great interest, the member for Port Darwin suggesting petrol sniffing and substance abuse is somehow related to the lack of employment. Quite rightly, the member for Nelson said substance abuse has nothing to do with lack of income; people with high incomes will buy expensive drugs and abuse them. I also find it hypocritical for the member for Port Darwin to tell us there are no jobs - mining is providing many jobs in Aboriginal communities. When we came to power in 2001, we found 700 mining application licences sitting on the minister’s desk because they were on Aboriginal land and the minister did not want to sign them off, because he used these applications as a tool to offset land rights and native title.
Mr Elferink: Not true.
Mr VATSKALIS: Seven hundred licences were not approved; 700 areas were not explored, a few mines were probably not approved, so Indigenous people were not given jobs.
We have provided opportunities for Indigenous people. We are the first government to sign an agreement with the Indigenous Land Corporation to open Indigenous land to pastoral properties to employ Aboriginal people. We are the first government to allow pastoralists to negotiate with Indigenous people to rent and bring back into production Indigenous lands, providing jobs to Indigenous people.
We have been here for several years so there is corporate knowledge. Do not tell us lack of jobs in Indigenous communities is the problem when you, in power, stopped the development of jobs in Indigenous communities by stopping development of the mining and pastoral industries.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: This is an important piece of legislation which, I believe, reverberates around the Territory. This legislation is very important for the member for Macdonnell, whose electorate is suffering; it is very important for me because I have young kids in my electorate who abuse substances. It might not be petrol, it may be propellants from spray cans or glue. I am very pleased, the private sector in certain areas, including Alice Springs, will not sell spray cans or glue to young people unless they provide an identity card.
Madam Speaker, I commend these amendments to the House. I look forward to discussing them further in the committee stages, and provide information to members if they need clarification.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr CONLAN: I have quite a few questions and I know my colleagues, who were involved in the debate in 2005, will also have some questions.
Minister, are you able to give us a definition of what an ‘authorised person’ and an ‘authorised officer’ is?
Mr VATSKALIS: An ‘authorised officer’, referred to in the act, is not part of these amendments. In the act an ‘authorised officer’ means a person appointed to be an authorised officer under section 66 or a police officer.
Mr CONLAN: Proposed section 4 mentions ‘authorised person’, ‘authorised officer’. My understanding is that it is being inserted into the act.
_______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I take the opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Year 9 students from St Philip’s College, accompanied by their teachers, Ms Kate Bennett and Mrs Leslie Tilbrook. Honourable members, I am sure you join me in extending a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_______________________
Mr VATSKALIS: An ‘authorised officer’ and, quite clearly, it says a police officer is authorised, but also a person who has undertaken training, or is authorised by the Chief Health Officer, as described by the act.
Mr CONLAN: Can you tell us what qualifications an ‘authorised person’ will need, as referenced in the act; an ‘authorised officer’ or an ‘authorised person’?
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not have the list in front of me. I will get the act and provide you with the information as soon as I have the act in front of me.
Mr CONLAN: Can you tell me how many authorised officers or authorised persons there will be?
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not have the information with me. Again, the act provides the opportunity for a number of people to be appointed. It does not specify one, two, or three people who can be appointed to fulfil the requirements of the act. This will depend on demand on the service or how many people we have to refer.
Mr CONLAN: Can I ask you to repeat, minister, an authorised officer is a police officer?
Mr VATSKALIS: A police officer is an authorised officer.
Mr CONLAN: A police officer, and who else is an authorised officer?
Mr VATSKALIS: Other people, who fulfil the requirements of the act, to be defined as ‘authorised officers’.
Mr CONLAN: What qualifications will those other authorised officers be required to have?
Mr VATSKALIS: I will have the act in front of me, and I will provide this information to you from the act.
Mr CONLAN: Authorised officer and an authorised person?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Greatorex, could I just remind members of the protocol to rise.
Mr CONLAN: I was taking the lead from the minister; he was staying seated.
Madam CHAIR: That is why I am reminding all members.
Mr CONLAN: Can you stay seated if you want to?
Madam CHAIR: It is protocol that you rise when addressing.
Mr CONLAN: I was taking your lead, minister.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: Can I ask about nurse practitioners please, minister. Are they excluded from the definition of health practitioner in proposed amendment to section 4? Is it the case they are considered a registered nurse and, thus, covered, or are they excluded in the definition of a health practitioner.
Madam CHAIR: Minister, if I could ask you to rise when addressing the Chamber.
Mr VATSKALIS: Apologies.
Madam CHAIR: Particularly because we have students learning about parliamentary process. Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, nurses are authorised persons, and a nurse practitioner is an authorised person.
Mr CONLAN: I refer to my colleague, the shadow minister for children and families services.
Ms CARNEY: With your leave, Madam Chair, I would like to do so from …
Madam CHAIR: For the benefit of Hansard, the member for Araluen is in the member for Port Darwin’s seat.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, what background checks will be undertaken into people who are proposed as authorised officers in this bill?
Mr VATSKALIS: As I said before, I do not have the whole act in my mind. I will have the act in front of me and go specifically to the section referred to and provide the information to you.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, we are debating this legislation. Should we, and students from St Philip’s, be concerned that you do not have the piece of legislation we are debating, as you say, ‘in your mind’.
Mr VATSKALIS: We are debating the amendments, and I now have a copy of the legislation in front of me. I am happy to go to the relevant section and provide the information to members.
I quote section 66, Authorised officer:
This is the generic information provided in this act.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you have atrocious form, when it comes to bringing bills into the House and commending those bills to us, whether they are amendments or entire bills. The most recent example was the Hospital Boards Bill, which my colleague, the member for Greatorex, talked so much about in the October sittings. I am pleased, minister, to see you were handed a piece of paper and you could answer that part of my question.
Minister, what background checks will be undertaken into those people who are proposed to be authorised officers?
Mr VATSKALIS: Police officers, of course, are authorised officers. A person to be appointed by the minister as an authorised officer has to have accredited training and a police check.
Ms CARNEY: I understood you to say the authorised officers would be police officers, is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: The police officers are already authorised officers under the definition of the amendments we have put in place.
Ms CARNEY: Is there any other person, not a police officer, who may be an authorised officer?
Mr VATSKALIS: Section 60 of the act says:
(1) The minister may … appoint a person as an authorised officer …
Ms CARNEY: Are the authorised officers going to be engaged in child-related work?
Mr VATSKALIS: The authorised officer will be dealing with adults and young people, and this is the reason they have to undergo the police checks.
Ms CARNEY: It is the case the act specifically provides for situations involving children, so it is the case authorised officers will be working with children? I am wording your answer differently and more succinctly, is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes it is. If a young child is a petrol sniffer, the authorised officer will deal with that child, which is the reason he has to undergo a police check or character check.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I refer you to section 185(2) of the Care and Protection of Children Act, which my question is in relation to: will the authorised person be considered a person engaged in child related work pursuant to the aforesaid section of the act?
Mr VATSKALIS: My understanding is yes, but they will be subject to the same terms and conditions.
Ms CARNEY: The work those authorised persons will undertake, is that considered to be what is generally described as child protection work?
Mr VATSKALIS: An authorised officer will administer the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act. I do not consider the act to have anything specific about child protection. On the other hand, it can be argued that treating a young person or a child for volatile substance abuse can be child protection. Strictly speaking, the authorised officer administers the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act, not the Child Protection Act.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, if the work of the authorised persons is not considered to be child protection work, can you advise which part of section 185(2) of the Care and Protection of Children Act applies?
Mr VATSKALIS: As I explained before, we are not talking about the child protection act, we are talking about the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act; any action that officers undertake will be to enforce the act we have in front of us today. I know the member for Araluen has a special interest in child protection, and I congratulate her for that, but trying to bring that into the equation now, I believe, is totally irrelevant.
Ms CARNEY: The reason I am interested in asking these questions, minister, is you are aware people working in the child protection area have to undertake a series of checks, and I believe your government proposes an Ochre Card which requires a different level of checking from a standard police check. I am wondering whether, in due course, given what might be an area of concern, we may need to further amend the act to ensure authorised officers, who clearly will be engaged in child protection work, are covered by the provisions of the Care and Protection of Children Act. I am not only talking about the police officers.
Mr VATSKALIS: I thank the member for Araluen for her important question. Under the new amendments we provide power to the Chief Health Officer, who has the ability to provide guidelines. I will ensure the Chief Health Officer, in her guidelines, will consider what you said: that the person dealing with children should be appropriately accredited and authorised to deal with children, especially if it involves inhalation of volatile substances. It is a very important point; I thank you very much. I will ensure the Chief Health Officer considers it when she puts guidelines in place.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, very much, minister.
Mr CONLAN: Moving on to clause 5. Minister this repeals the existing section 31, which is the definitional section. Can you please tell us what qualifications, or class of qualifications, you believe are appropriate for appointment under the proposed new section 31(5)?
Mr VATSKALIS: The proposed new section 31 is about the assessor appointed by the Chief Health Officer to assess people at risk of severe harm. The bill proposes: additional to health practitioners, the minister may approve a qualification, or class of qualification, to make assessments. That can include nurses, nurse practitioners, or other people with expertise in the area. It is not only physical harm people can suffer through inhaling volatile substances, but also physiological. I would not exclude authorising as an assessor, a person with skills in psychology or psychiatry.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, will these assessors be full-time positions, and will they then be appropriately funded by the department?
Mr VATSKALIS: All positions within the department are funded appropriately by the department. They will be full-time positions.
Mr CONLAN: Can you tell us what grade they will be?
Mr VATSKALIS: Currently, the assessor appointed under legislation is a nurse category 5.
Mr CONLAN: Can you tell us where they will be located?
Mr VATSKALIS: There are currently two in Darwin, and two in Alice Springs. They are going to be expanded next year by an additional officer in each of these towns; there will be six in the New Year.
Mr CONLAN: Have the assessment guidelines relating to proposed new section 31(3) been prepared, and will they be tabled in parliament?
Mr VATSKALIS: The guidelines are already in place. They are being reviewed by the Chief Health Officer, and they will be finalised shortly. It is not a secret; I am happy to table them in parliament when they are ready.
Mr CONLAN: Can you put some time frame on that? Is it early New Year? It is important we had some guidelines while the act is …
Mr VATSKALIS: It will be early in the New Year. I hope in the next sittings of parliament we will be able to bring them to parliament and table them.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, have the guidelines specified in proposed new section 31(4) been developed?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is they are the same guidelines - the ones currently under development.
Mr CONLAN: Who are the current providers of treatment programs in the Northern Territory? Could you please tell the committee?
Mr VATSKALIS: The current providers are CAAPS, Ilperle, Bushmob, and Arrernte House in Alice Springs.
Mr CONLAN: How many residential treatment facilities are currently operational in the Northern Territory?
Mr VATSKALIS: All of these residential facilities are currently operating.
Mr CONLAN: Could you please tell us how many new facilities will become available as a result of this legislation?
Mr VATSKALIS: These are the ones currently operating and we tend to work closely with them. If there are any requirements for additional facilities to be developed, the department will look into developing new facilities.
Mr CONLAN: Who decides the most appropriate treatment program, and what is the process involved?
Mr VATSKALIS: The decision is done by the assessor initially, and then followed up by the magistrate.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, minister, could you repeat that?
Mr VATSKALIS: I said, initially by the assessor, and then by the magistrate.
Mr CONLAN: Are there any programs assessed which reside outside the Northern Territory?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, can I ask the member to repeat his question, I cannot hear him?
Mr CONLAN: Are there any programs assessed which are outside the Northern Territory?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, because this is Northern Territory legislation and operates only in the Northern Territory.
Mr CONLAN: Moving on to some of the specific treatment programs to establish some common ground, what has been the completion rate of patients in treatment since the act came into force?
Mr VATSKALIS: Of 198 people approved by the minister for assessment, 48 are undergoing formal assessment; 87 people ceased sniffing at referral, three ended treatment voluntarily, 11 ended treatment through the criminal justice system, eight moved interstate, one passed away, and six were found unsuitable for mandatory treatment. A total of 38 court orders for 30 individuals have been issued for treatment; 19 were adults, and 11 were under 18 years of age. More specifically, while we did not have any assessed formal completions, we understand, out of 31 referrals, about 90% have been successfully completed.
Mr CONLAN: Was that 99%?
Mr VATSKALIS: 90%.
Mr CONLAN: Do you have any statistics on the number of patients who have participated in treatment programs and have subsequently continued to abuse volatile substances, the re-offenders?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, we do not have any statistics.
Mr CONLAN: What happens to those habitual abusers, where treatment has failed?
Mr VATSKALIS: Unfortunately, as the member for Nelson mentioned earlier, quite a few people find it extremely hard to kick the habit. If these people fail, and they sniff again, they can be referred to undergo further treatment. It is extremely difficult to treat this kind of addiction. We have seen it, not only with volatile substances, but with other drugs like alcohol, marijuana, even medicinal drugs. The only thing remaining is to refer them for further treatment.
Mr CONLAN: The bill introduces a number of new treatment methods. What does the stabilisation treatment program involve? If it is about helping people stop sniffing, the appropriateness of it does need to be questioned.
Mr VATSKALIS: This is not my field, but my understanding of stabilisation is to provide an opportunity for the person to stay away from the temptation, either by support after treatment, or relocating to a place where he or she cannot access volatile substances. It is an attempt to stabilise their life in the hope they will kick the habit.
The committee suspended.
VOLATILE SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 71)
(Serial 71)
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we are part way through the committee of the whole discussing the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Amendment Bill.
Member for Greatorex, do you have further questions?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, following on from my last question, could you please explain what ‘aftercare’ treatment involves?
Mr VATSKALIS: I believe I answered that question, member for Greatorex. I am happy to repeat it. Aftercare means to support a person after treatment so they are stabilised, and do not seek to inhale a volatile substance again.
Mr CONLAN: If you could elaborate on that, what does aftercare treatment involve?
Mr VATSKALIS: This question does not directly refer to the act and the amendments; the answer could be provided by a briefing. Aftercare treatment is to support a person after initial treatment, and involves a number of interventions by a medical professional.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, the bill introduces a number of new treatment programs, so I believe this does relate directly to the bill. The question is: what does aftercare treatment involve? This is part of the amendments to this bill, and I believe you should be able to answer the question.
Mr VATSKALIS: No, it does not refer to new treatment, it refers to alternative treatments. Every person is different, every person has different requirements and the treatment we provide has to match the specific requirements of the person; not only the fact he inhales substances, but his physical and mental health. The type of treatment provided to the person would be determined by experts; in this case, the medical practitioners and other practitioners who are experts in the field.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, I am not sure whether you have read the bill, because new section 31A(2) of the amendments, ‘Treatment program’, states:
- (a) treatment for withdrawal, stabilisation, rehabilitation or aftercare.
Again, minister, my question is: what does aftercare treatment involve?
Mr VATSKALIS: Member for Greatorex, yes, I have read the bill and clause 5, 31A refers to a treatment program and clearly states:
(1) A treatment program is a program of treatment or intervention appropriate for a person at risk of severe harm
It refers to a number of treatments: ‘treatment for withdrawal’ - supports the person while they suffer withdrawal symptoms; ‘stabilisation’ - make sure the person is stabilised; ‘rehabilitation or aftercare’, it is obvious aftercare usually refers to support of a person after all treatments are finished. Of course, it says in subclauses (b) and (c) and (d) other types of treatments or intervention intended to alleviate severe harm.
It is not for me to tell you what the treatment is, and it is not for me to prescribe the treatment. The treatments prescribed are generic, and they have to be prescribed by specialists and experts in the field. Specific treatment is not prescribed here; it is a generic type of treatment. The act will not prescribe a particular medicine for withdrawal support. It says ‘withdrawal’. We know what withdrawal is.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, despite that, I believe it is reasonable to expect you would know what aftercare treatment would be involved. Is it going to involve families or the community? What is involved in aftercare treatment? Considering it is specifically mentioned in the bill, I thought, as the minister taking carriage of this bill, you might be able to elaborate, or tell the House what is involved in aftercare treatment? I do not think it is unreasonable.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I know the member for Greatorex wants some information on this point, however, as Minister for Health, I have carriage of legislation for cancer, and for treatment of infectious diseases. I would not determine treatment of a cancer patient, or a person with an infectious disease. They are generic descriptions. Decisions regarding cancer treatment are prescribed by a medical practitioner, and experts in the field. Yes, it may involve family support, but it is not the minister who decides that; it is the medical practitioner.
Mr CONLAN: As the Minister for Health, you would not be able to explain what treatment a cancer patient might undertake, for example?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, and I can tell you I would not go to an emergency department and prescribe treatment to a person who presents at emergency. I am not a doctor or a nurse. I do not give instruction to medical practitioners on how to prescribe and how to apply treatment. I have carriage of the legislation, not carriage of the treatment of the person.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, I know you said you have many bills, however, they do come before the House one at a time, and they sit here for 30 days, which should give you enough time to get across some of this legislation, particularly your own amendments you are introducing. I find it extraordinary you cannot tell me what is involved in aftercare treatment, when it is specifically highlighted in the bill.
Minister, how is the family and community engaged in assisting transition back into the community after participating in a treatment program?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, can I ask the member to tell me which particular clause of the legislation he refers to?
Mr CONLAN: Treatment programs.
Mr VATSKALIS: New section 31A?
Mr CONLAN: Treatment Programs, new section 31A.
Mr VATSKALIS: The involvement of the family is part of the process the volatile substance abuse clinician and the treatment provider prescribes. Again, these decisions are made by medical experts, not by the minister. The legislation prescribes, in generic form, the type of treatment, not specific treatments which apply to a person who has a substance abuse addiction.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, what is involved in therapeutic treatment? Am I to assume, because you could not answer what is involved in aftercare treatment, despite it being in the bill, you are unable to elaborate on what is involved in therapeutic treatment?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, if the member for Greatorex has time to open a dictionary, he will find out what ‘therapeutic’ means. The common person knows ‘therapeutic’ means the use of drugs.
Mr CONLAN: Can you elaborate then, minister, please?
Mr VATSKALIS: I cannot give the name of the particular drug. This is a decision taken by the medical practitioner, not the minister.
Mr CONLAN: Is there some accreditation process for people who administer therapeutic treatment?
Mr VATSKALIS: Any person who provides treatment has to be accredited through an appropriate course, and every organisation which provides a particular treatment has to be approved by the Chief Medical Officer, and has to be accredited.
Mr CONLAN: I would like you to explain to us the educational programs which have been included in existing treatment programs. Have there been any attempts to assist patients with literacy and numeracy, and other life and work skills involved in educational programs?
Mr VATSKALIS: This bill amends the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act, and the amendment specifically refers to the treatment of people. The educational intervention can have many forms. It can provide information about the substance, health problems, and diseases. It is a decision by the medical practitioner who prescribed the treatment. If education intervention is sending someone to school in a particular area, this is not a decision made by the minister. We have prescribed the generic forms of treatment to be undertaken, not specifically. For example, with education diversion, there is no way we are going to say ‘you have to go to primary school’, or ‘you have to attend so many days of classes’, and consider that as a treatment.
Mr CONLAN: Is the answer to that no, minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, the member is trying to put words in my mouth. I did not say no. I said, treatment is decided by the general practitioner. He has been doing this all the time, and I am not going to take it any more. I said specifically, education intervention can be in the form of providing information about the harm suffered to the person by inhaling substances. It might also involve sending someone to school, but this is a decision made by the general practitioner. I do not think my answer was no.
Mr CONLAN: Is the answer then, possibly?
Mr VATSKALIS: The answer was this is a decision by the medical practitioner, not the minister. I do not know if he understands that.
Mr CONLAN: I do, because it is a common practice of this government to distance the minister further and further from legislation, so I have a pretty good grasp on that. Ministerial responsibility is one thing this government is not very good at; I am very clear on that, minister. It is in the hands of the Chief Medical Officer, not the minister.
Minister, what are you hoping to achieve by including proposed new section 31A(2):
(a) any other type of treatment or intervention intended to alleviate the severe harm?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, this is so obvious, I am surprised he cannot understand it. When you have a person in danger of severe harm, there might be treatment to alleviate it. For example, with the prescription of drugs a person has to be under constant intervention or a person has to be taken to hospital. This is the type of treatment or intervention we may have to employ when a person is in danger of severe harm.
Mr CONLAN: That is clear, minister, however could you elaborate on what any other treatment or intervention might be?
Mr VATSKALIS: Again, the decision for treatment would be made by the medical practitioner responsible, but one form of intervention could be counselling. Another one is to remove the person from the temptation, such as taken to an outstation, or taken to do something useful with their life, teach them a trade, take them somewhere and learn to play football. There are a variety of options.
Mr CONLAN: Reading and writing?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, reading and writing. Again, that is a decision which will be made by the medical practitioner. You also have to consider the treatment time of eight weeks to 16 weeks. We will support children in reading and writing, but intervention may need to be quick, and it might have to be a combination of all those, together with medication.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, can you please tell us what quantum of funding has been allocated to provide additional treatment program options?
Mr VATSKALIS: We have over $2m going into these programs, but the purpose of this is not to increase the number of programs; it is to diversify the programs available to us to meet the needs of the individual. Not all individuals are the same, and not all come for the same conditions. We try to match the intervention with the individual and their background in order to address some of the issues.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but is it the same amount of money with more options?
Mr VATSKALIS: There are different ways of spending money. You can spend money because you want to spend money, or you can spend money more effectively, getting a bigger bang for your dollar. With the $2m we are spending, we want to find a more effective way to address this issue, and a diversity of ways to address this issue.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, do you consider this amount of funding appropriate?
Mr VATSKALIS: This amount of funding is $2m more than the CLP ever put into this type of program.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, would you mind answering, do you find this amount of funding appropriate?
Mr VATSKALIS: I have said to you before, it is $2m more than the CLP government ever put into this kind of intervention.
Mr CONLAN: I will ask you again, and if I can get a yes or no, Madam Chair, please. Do you consider this amount of funding appropriate?
Mr VATSKALIS: You do not learn, do you? This government has put $2m into addressing the issues because the previous CLP government failed to introduce a program like this. When we introduced the legislation you went feral, because you did not want it.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, while that might be the case, do you consider this amount appropriate? If you cannot answer it, I will take it as a no.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, the member does not learn. I advised you before, we put $2m into this kind of intervention, which is a significant amount of money, and much more than the CLP, and we have seen results. The amount of money we put in place, and the way we spent it has had some results. We must be doing something good; the $2m is money well spent.
Mr CONLAN: You still did not answer the question, minister. I can only take that as a no, you do not consider it to be appropriate. It may be more than what was put in previously, but there are more programs; it is the same amount of money for more programs, so I can assume you do not consider the funding to be appropriate.
Minister, what assurance can you give a person required to attend treatment they can receive it in a timely, culturally sensitive manner, and at an appropriate location?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, first, I am very pleased the member will admit the CLP government did not put money into this diversionary program. Yes, it is our intention a person who is in danger will be seen very quickly. This is one reason we collapsed the steps of the assessment; we removed the minister and placed responsibility on the Chief Medical Officer, because the Chief Medical Officer can make decisions very quickly. The amendment specifies they will be seen as soon as practicable, and the Chief Health Officer will make a decision about the treatment order and, as soon as practicable, make an application to the court. We have not put specific time frames, but as soon as practicable means exactly that; as soon as a person requires to be treated, he or she will be treated.
Mr CONLAN: Can you expand on some culturally sensitive approaches minister, and appropriate locations?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, we spoke previously about the Chief Medical Officer developing guidelines. In these guidelines will be requirements for a culturally appropriate way to deal with people who, after all, come from remote communities, Indigenous communities, or even urban Indigenous communities, and also non-urban communities. There are cases where mainstream children sniff glue or sniff the propellant of spray cans.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, what interaction is there with other agencies, such as FACS?
Mr VATSKALIS: There is interaction between the different departments; FACS can refer people to us and we work in partnership with Children’s Services. This involves a variety of people, a number of them are children and, it is mandated, there has to be close cooperation.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, what is involved if a child is a victim of petrol sniffing or is a sniffer? What is involved, and what interaction is there with other agencies?
Mr VATSKALIS: If FACS find a child who is inhaling volatile substances, it will refer them to us. If it comes to our attention, we communicate the finding to FACS.
Mr CONLAN: New section 31A(2) states:
(e) any other type of treatment or intervention intended to alleviate the severe harm.
Mr VATSKALIS: Let us not go to extremes. It is highly unlikely shock treatment would be engaged. The treatment prescribed will be the treatment provided to meet the needs of the individual, and has to fulfil all the ethical requirements for a medical practitioner to administer it.
Mr CONLAN: In other words, it is not completely ruled out. It stands in an extreme circumstance, is that right?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is ruled out. You are not going to ask me if I am going to provide a diuretic for a person with volatile substance abuse. It is a type of treatment, but it is not a type of treatment appropriate for the particular case.
Mr CONLAN: In that case, should it not be explicitly ruled out, or prohibited?
Mr VATSKALIS: There would be a number of treatments not applicable to this particular case, if we start listing those in legislation, we would finish with about 400 pages. There are a significant number of treatments which would not apply for the simple reason we would have no result, and because they are not appropriate.
Mr CONLAN: This may be the case; however could you indicate to us what other treatments you might rule out?
Mr VATSKALIS: I cannot indicate that to you because I am not a medical practitioner. I am quite sure the medical practitioners would be very happy to provide you with a briefing about appropriate treatment in the case of substance abuse.
Mr CONLAN: You said there is a number - you even put a figure on it, 400 - I suggest you have some idea of other treatments which might not be appropriate to new section 31A(2)(c).
Mr VATSKALIS: I said if we started listing all possible treatments we may finish with legislation of maybe 400 pages, it may not be 400 pages; it is a hypothetical number.
Mr CONLAN: We will move to clause 6, Part 3, new section 33. Minister, what type of professions have been authorised under new section 33(1)(a), other than a police officer?
Mr VATSKALIS: We had the argument over who is an authorised officer. It refers to an authorised officer as a police officer or an authorised person. A person is authorised by the minister, following a proper assessment, to be an authorised person.
Mr CONLAN: Will ACPOs be appointed as authorised persons?
Mr VATSKALIS: If they meet the full requirements and have the proper accreditation and proper clearances, the minister can appoint an ACPO, or any other person he believes is accredited, and has clearance from the police, to be an authorised person or authorised officer.
Mr CONLAN: You are the minister, so I am suggesting you would be able to authorise an ACPO due to their qualifications. What about Night Patrol teams? Would they be an authorised person?
Mr VATSKALIS: We currently authorise people in CAYLUS and Bushmob, and some Night Patrols are authorised. Again, a person can be authorised if they have undergone accredited training, and have the proper police record. If assessed as an appropriate person, the minister can authorise.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, you mentioned training. Who provides the training?
Mr VATSKALIS: Our department.
Mr CONLAN: Can you tell us what the training involves?
Mr VATSKALIS: This information can be accessed from the website of the department. It tells you what the training entails. I am very happy to table this for the information for the member.
Mr CONLAN: Table it?
Mr VATSKALIS: I said I am happy to table it.
Mr CONLAN: Go right ahead.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is the course requirements. Everything is on the web.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, can you tell us if any teachers have been appointed as authorised persons?
Mr VATSKALIS: We have conducted training with a number of people. We have a limited number of authorised persons. We do not have any teachers as authorised persons.
Mr CONLAN: Can you tell us the total of authorised persons you have; that is, police officers, ACPOs, if they meet the accreditation? How many authorised persons are there?
Mr VATSKALIS: We currently have seven authorised persons. You have to remember every police officer in the Territory is considered to be an authorised person.
Mr CONLAN: Apart from police officers, seven extra authorised persons to deal with volatile substance abuse in the Northern Territory?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, seven.
Mr CONLAN: Section 33(1)(b) refers to employees approved to make requests for treatment orders. How many employees have been approved, and what employment are they engaged in?
Mr VATSKALIS: The ‘employee’ in this clause refers to employees of the Northern Territory Public Service.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: Public servants.
Mr CONLAN: Is that all public servants?
Mr VATSKALIS: Northern Territory Public Servants.
Mr CONLAN: All Northern Territory Public Servants?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes. I apologise, Madam Chair. Employees of Northern Territory Family and Children’s Services; not all public servants, only those employed in the Northern Territory Family and Children’s Services.
Mr CONLAN: Every employee of Family and Children’s Services?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, employed by Family and Children’s Services.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, can you tell us what training is provided to authorised persons and employees authorised to exercise powers under this act?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, the document I tabled before contains the training these people have to undergo.
Mr CONLAN: How many applications for assessment have been made under section 33 in the last 12 months, and each year since the act came into force?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I have already referred to that. We have had 264 referrals, with 35 comprehensive assessments undertaken as a result, affecting 198 people. I believe the member has received a briefing from the department with this information. One hundred and ninety people were approved by the minister for assessment; 48 are undergoing formal assessment; 87 people ceased sniffing at referral; three entered treatment voluntarily; 11 entered treatment through the criminal justice system; eight went interstate; one passed away; and, six were found unsuitable for mandatory treatment. A total of 38 court orders have been issued for treatment, 19 of whom were adults, and 11 were under 18 years of age.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, minister. The purpose of that question was to put it on Hansard; it had not been placed on the Parliamentary Record.
Mr VATSKALIS: With all due respect, Madam Chair, I stated that in my closing statement.
Mr CONLAN: Okay, thank you. Minister, which area of the department manages the receipt of assessment applications?
Mr VATSKALIS: The Alcohol and Other Drugs program.
Mr CONLAN: What is the average time taken to process an assessment application?
Mr VATSKALIS: There is no prescribed time, because there are different conditions and circumstances for every client; the time is variable. It can be a few days, or it can be more than a few days. Again, not all clients are the same, not all conditions are the same; it depends on the client.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, you mentioned the AOD program, how many are working there specifically for the purposes of this bill?
Mr VATSKALIS: We have four people working in this area, which will increase to six in the New Year.
Mr CONLAN: I know you highlighted different people have different circumstances, but I was wondering why the amendments do not include any specific time frames around the assessment process.
Mr VATSKALIS: It is easy to put a figure in the legislation. The reality in the Northern Territory is not everyone lives in downtown Darwin or Alice Springs. People can live anywhere from Papunya to Yuendumu; people are mobile, sometimes a whole community is mobile. Putting in a number would not serve any purpose. We have to address the needs of the client, and we have to meet their needs as soon as practicably possible. I cannot put in 48 hours; that would mean nothing. Sometimes you cannot find a person in 48 hours, because they have moved from Yuendumu to somewhere else. Our aim is to find these people and to treat them as soon as practicably possible.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, is there an average time frame? In my second reading speech, I mentioned the lack of data available in the annual report. I am wondering, is there an average time frame around the assessment process?
Mr VATSKALIS: You highlighted the Senate Committee report could not find any concrete data. The reason it was so difficult to collect was because of the mobility of people. I believe we face the same difficulty in the Territory.
Mr CONLAN: Proposed new section 33(3) refers to the assessment application being accompanied by documents which support the belief a child or adult is at risk of serious harm.
Minister, can you please provide some detail around what documents are required, and what level of detail is required? It does not appear video or photographic evidence can be used. Would not that evidence be suitable in some circumstances? Over and above that, minister, could you provide some detail?
Mr VATSKALIS: Health clinic records, police records, evidence or statements by the family, photographs or any other corroborating evidence can be accepted as documents.
Mr CONLAN: I will move on to proposed new section 34, ‘Assessment and report’. What is the process for allocating an application to an assessor?
Mr VATSKALIS: It depends where the report comes from. If it comes from the Top End it will be referred to a Darwin assessor, and if it comes from Central Australia, to a Central Australian assessor; it is a geographical allocation.
Mr CONLAN: How soon after the department receives an assessment application is it allocated to an assessor?
Mr VATSKALIS: As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, they are received by the assessor.
Mr CONLAN: They are received by the assessor. Will assessment applicants be advised when an application is transferred to an assessor, and will applicants be provided with names and contact details of the assessor? Or is it vice versa?
Mr VATSKALIS: They are usually in contact with them as part of the assessment. Obviously they know the assessor and their details.
Mr CONLAN: Looking at proposed new section 34(2)(a): ‘it is impracticable to examine the person’, what circumstances would be considered impracticable? Can you elaborate on that, please?
Mr VATSKALIS: There are a number of conditions which may make it impracticable. A person might move interstate, or we are unable to locate them because they have moved without leaving a forwarding address. ‘Impracticable’ speaks for itself: unable to find the person – impracticable to find the person.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, why is interstate impracticable? Do we not cooperate with other jurisdictions?
Mr VATSKALIS: The act only applies to the Northern Territory. We do not have jurisdiction in Western Australia, South Australia, or Queensland. Some states do not have equivalent legislation.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, why would you proceed with an assessment if the person is interstate?
Mr VATSKALIS: We start the assessment, the person moves, and it is impracticable to find the person to examine them. The assessment will stop, because we cannot find the person. We would not continue to assess a person we cannot find.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, with reference to proposed new section 34(2), what if subsections (a) or (b) do not apply, and the person refuses to be assessed?
Mr VATSKALIS: We can examine the corroborating evidence and, even if the person refuses to be assessed, we can proceed down the road of a warrant. We can get the evidence. If the evidence shows the person is at risk, even if he or she refuses to be assessed, we can go further and ask for a warrant.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, will the department provide resources to allow assessors to travel to remote communities and undertake assessments?
Mr VATSKALIS: We are already doing this.
Mr CONLAN: Who will determine the appropriate providers of treatment programs? Will this be done by tender or will assessors be free to recommend treatment programs of their own choosing? Will the services be Northern Territory-based or is the minister proposing some patients will travel interstate for treatment?
Mr VATSKALIS: Usually, people are referred to service providers already contracted with the department and if it is required to contract other people, we usually go to tender.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I believe the member for Port Darwin has questions on proposed new section 34.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Chair. In your second reading speech, you made reference to sections 33 and 34, where the multiple approval steps of the act require separate approval processes to: (1) conduct the assessment, and (2) apply to the court for a treatment order to be collapsed into a single process. When did this start becoming an issue?
Mr VATSKALIS: During the review, because of the delays we were witnessing; it was a double-sided process.
Mr ELFERINK: Roughly how long ago, 12 months, two years, three years?
Mr VATSKALIS: The review finished in March 2008.
Mr ELFERINK: In March 2008, the business of apprehension, release, get an order, go back and re-apprehend, the whole thing. Prior to March 2008 it was identified as a problem, I take it?
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not know why you refer to apprehension; there is no apprehension. Yes, it was identified as a problem, which was confirmed with the review in 2008, and steps have been taken to alleviate this problem.
Mr ELFERINK: The point is, minister, the government was aware of this issue in 2006. Are you aware of that?
Mr VATSKALIS: As I said to you before, a review was conducted by the department, the review confirmed there was a problem, and we have now taken steps to rectify the problem.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, and I point out to you, the government was aware of this problem in 2004. Are you aware of that?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, the act was introduced in 2004. It was a new act; a groundbreaking act. We tried to put safety valves in place because we knew some of the steps taken were revolutionary, and we knew many people would criticise us. I am very pleased to say that the people who criticised us then, want to use the same, or a similar, act for alcohol. Yes, it is a complicated process, however, at the same time, we did it because we had safety valves in place. It was a new act, and we committed to go back and review it, which we did. We believe we can now operate it effectively by providing the powers to the Chief Medical Officer, and not the minister.
Mr ELFERINK: First, I have to respond to your assertion that we want to use a similar piece of legislation for alcohol. You need to read our policy because you will discover we still create an offence in our policy. This does not create an offence, and it does not intend to create an offence. Before you start spreading misinformation about our policy, at least get your head around it before you start deceiving people about it.
The second issue is, this problem was identified in the committee stages when the bill was introduced in 2004, but the government refused to listen to the issue then. Why did we have to wait three-and-a-half years for you to rediscover the problem outlined to you in 2004?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is 2009; I am the Minister for Health. I bring amendments to legislation to streamline it, and make it more workable. What happened in 2004, happened in 2004. We have new amendments, which we are debating. I am not going to go back to 2006 or 2004. These are good amendments and, if there was a problem in 2004, you must be pleased we are eliminating the problems by introducing these amendments. I am very happy you support the amendments. I was not the minister in 2004 and I cannot remember three Legislative Assemblies ago.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right, the ‘nothing-to-do-with-me’ approach. The frustrating thing is, from time to time, members on this side of this House legitimately attempt to bring information to the ears of this government, which will eliminate avoidable problems. Yet, because of pigheadedness and bloody-mindedness on the part of this government, we see a situation where an issue was identified in 2004 which has led, I suspect, to multiple re-arrests of Aboriginal children. For every single arrest which will be made from now on because of this problem, there have been at least two arrests of the same Aboriginal child under the process, which you were warned about five years ago.
For you to throw your hands in the air, minister, and simply say: ‘nothing to do with me, it was before I was Health Minister’, is not good enough. You represent a government which should have known about this issue in 2004, because you were told. I have the documents in front of me which showed where the problem would occur. We were assured it was going to be sweetness and light, and Aboriginal children of the Northern Territory were going to be saved as a result of this groundbreaking legislation. What has happened, since 2004, is twice as many arrests of Aboriginal children have occurred, than were necessary. This is what you are attempting to rectify.
Yes, I do support the amendment, but not with any great sense of cheer - rather a sense of disappointment the government chose not to listen to the warnings which were signalled five years ago.
Mr VATSKALIS: First, let me be clear, no child has been arrested. We have not arrested children, Madam Speaker …
Mr Elferink: Good, I am …
Mr VATSKALIS: Children are referred for assessment and treatment. I know the member for Port Darwin says: ‘we told you in 2004’. This was the first time the government passed an act referring compulsory treatment of people; that was groundbreaking action, it had not been done anywhere else. We had to ensure all the safety valves were in place in order to not make any mistakes. That is why the minister was involved.
This act has matured; we realise what we are doing is not groundbreaking, it is now the norm. It works very well. Yes, members of your own party have asked to implement this act for alcohol. No, alcoholism is not an offence, it is a disease, a sickness; people need to be treated, not arrested.
I do not apologise for bringing it now. I was not the minister then and I did not have carriage of it. The minister who brought it to this House deserves to be congratulated. It has made a big difference to many people. I was very pleased to meet with CAYLUS and be advised that it is no longer a big problem in Central Australia. Every time there is an eruption of the problem, we can address it very quickly.
These amendments are good; they make the act more workable. I commend the amendments to the House.
Mr ELFERINK: You were told five years ago how to make the act more workable, you chose not to listen. I pick up on the point you make about no arrests. How many orders have been sought under this process?
Mr VATSKALIS: They are not arrests, they are referrals. There were 264 referrals. We do not handcuff people and drag them to the court; we treat them like human beings, they are referrals. We are there to help people who have a problem and need to be helped; we do not arrest them.
Mr ELFERINK: You call them referrals. Why do you give police powers for the use of force in your referrals process in this legislation?
Mr VATSKALIS: The police powers refer to search and seizure and taking people to a safe place, similar to when someone is drunk. They do not arrest a drunken person lying on the street; they take them to a safe place, which is usually the sobering-up shelter.
Mr ELFERINK: You give police powers of apprehension but not arrest, and this is cute. Under the Common Law, any exercise of a power which deprives a person of their liberty, including a police officer standing there and saying: ‘do not move’, is an arrest. For you to say it is not an arrest, because it is a referral and no one goes to court, is wrong - it is wrong at law - and it is wrong at any level of common sense. A person apprehended by a police officer, using a power granted to the police officer by this House, or any other similar place, is arrested when they are deprived of their liberty. Do not give us lectures based on cute interpretations when, in actual fact, it is an arrest - it is an arrest. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck.
Mr VATSKALIS: Again, not all referrals come from police officers. They come from health centres. So these children are not arrested. People are apprehended and taken to a safe environment, like a sobering-up shelter. If people are arrested, how can they be released in the morning to walk free? If you are arrested it has to be recorded, and procedures have to be followed, otherwise someone is not doing their job properly.
Mr ELFERINK: I would suggest you find out the definition of arrest. The moment you start saying ‘apprehended’ and ‘taken to a safe place’, that person is under arrest, it is as simple as that. What happens to that person is a matter of law after they begin that process, but if you think you are not arresting these people, you are wrong.
The second issue I would like to raise in relation to this matter is that if you are not arresting these people - and I still do not have an answer to that question - why are you giving powers of reasonable force to go about this referral process?
Mr VATSKALIS: The power for police to use reasonable force does not relate to the referral, it relates to the powers to search and rescue. Reasonable force, and I dispute with the member, does not mean ‘use lethal force’; that is not reasonable force.
Mr ELFERINK: I am a little confused. The word ‘force’ means the application of some form of force, it is self-defining. How can you say the use of reasonable force is not the use of force? Can you enlighten us?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I am here to debate the Volatile Substance Abuse amendments, not the Police Administration Act.
Mr ELFERINK: The part of the legislation we are discussing has incorporated into it the powers of police officers to use reasonable force. You have just told us reasonable force is not force; please enlighten me as to what you mean?
Mr VATSKALIS: The act clearly specifies where power may be exercised. Section 8 says:
(1) A police officer or authorised person may exercise a power under Division 2 or 3 only in relation to a person who is:
(e) in a public place;
(f) trespassing on private property; or
(g) on private premises, if consent to enter the premises is given to the police officer or authorised person:
(ii) if there is no occupier - by the owner of the premises.
The powers the police officer has are very clear and specific. It is not about referral; it is about a person trespassing, and the police officer needs the authorisation of the occupier of the premises. There is no power for the police officer relating to people who need referral.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, this is a little cute. We still do not have an answer to the question. You have told us reasonable force is not force, can you please explain that?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, I will not explain because I am not going to debate police powers; I am going to debate the amendments to the Volatile Substance Abuse Act.
Mr ELFERINK: This is what happens, ladies and gentlemen of Alice Springs, when a minister talks himself into a corner and then refuses to answer questions because it has become too hard. In relation to these referrals, has any force been used, at any time, to exercise the powers under this legislation?
Mr VATSKALIS: We are not aware of force being used. We issue warrants, but we are not aware anyone has used force.
Mr ELFERINK: From those referrals we have had so far, on each and every occasion the referral process was initiated, the person, who was the subject of that process, volunteered to comply with the government’s instructions, is that how I understand it?
Mr VATSKALIS: As I said before, the introduction of this act has meant a difference to our community. After it was operational for a number of months, people realised this legislation could be used to help people and there was no need to use reasonable force in order to encourage people to come forward; they came forward to help themselves, or to help members of their family, or friends.
Mr ELFERINK: They were all volunteers. The government turned up, albeit a police officer or other public servant empowered under this legislation, and said: ‘hey guys, this is a really good idea, you should come with us now because we can get you a referral’. Is that how it works, they volunteer, or is there a process where some coercion is bought to bear?
Mr VATSKALIS: I said before, this act is working and many people have used this act to help themselves or members of their families. There have been cases where warrants have been issued, we do not deny that, but we did not bring anyone chained into court for treatment.
Mr ELFERINK: Warrants have been issued; a warrant implies something has to happen, as I understand it, is that correct, minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: Issuing a warrant is part of the process.
Mr ELFERINK: How is the warrant worded? What is the language of the warrant, minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: Warrant to protect person to participate in treatment program, in the schedule in the act.
Mr ELFERINK: Does that make the person subject to the warrant a volunteer, or is it no longer in their capacity to volunteer?
Mr VATSKALIS: A warrant is made by a magistrate in order to bring in a person for compulsory treatment.
Mr ELFERINK: Compulsory treatment, is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Why do you need a system of compulsory treatment, when you have told this House that everyone who has been subject to it has been a volunteer?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is not true; I did not say everyone was a volunteer. I said people bring their friends, their families, themselves. Yes, there have been cases where we issue a warrant.
Mr ELFERINK: Friends and family bring people through this process, then a warrant is issued. I presume when friends and family bring people to this process and a warrant is issued, the subject of the warrant is an unwilling participant, hence the need for a compulsory program, is that correct?
Mr VATSKALIS: I believe I explained that before. I do not know if the member was listening. I said …
Mr ELFERINK: I was.
Mr VATSKALIS: … if there are people who will not come themselves, then we issue a warrant.
Mr ELFERINK: We now have the reason for this legislation; it is compulsory legislation which issues warrants compelling people to do something against their will and, in that process, reasonable force has to be applied. Is that correct, minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: We are not going back again. We have been through that before.
Mr ELFERINK: We have not.
Mr VATSKALIS: If the member wants to go back again, I have already explained it, and I am not going back.
Mr ELFERINK: Once again, we find a minister saying: ‘I am not going to answer any more questions’. Why? Because he has painted himself into a corner, again. The fact is this legislation is necessary because these people are not volunteers; they have to be compelled.
If they were volunteers there would be no need for this amending bill because there would be no act; that is the problem we have. This government is not listening to the core issues which are raised by this side of the House, and this is why we had the problem last time, and why this amendment is back in the House now: the government is refusing to listen and, when the questioning gets too hard, refuses to answer questions.
The people of Alice Springs are seeing their government in action and the lack of knowledge and understanding it has of how these processes work at the ground level: to compel a petrol sniffer to comply with a warrant you have to use force, on occasion; this is what the government does not want to admit, because it wants it to be warm and fuzzy.
I accept the reasons for force being used - I understand why force has to be used. By taking a position where we deny it has to be used, but we ask for legislation to empower us to use it, is too cute by half. It should not be so hard for a legislator to say: ‘Yes, we are going to compel people and, if necessary, we are going to use force’. To attempt to squib out of these responsibilities, demonstrates a government not prepared to be honest about the business it does; which is why it is such a disappointment to the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam CHAIR: Any further questions?
Mr CONLAN: I move to proposed new section 35 of the bill: ‘Decision after considering assessment report’. Minister, can you please tell us how many requests for assessment you, and your predecessors, have refused?
Mr VATSKALIS: I have been advised that 21 applications for assessment have been refused by the minister, and these are the reasons: two entered treatment through the criminal justice system; two were under FACS holding orders; one went interstate; 10 ceased sniffing; one was found unsuitable for treatment; and five of these referrals were not progressed to the minister, because one was withdrawn, one person entered the criminal justice system, two people entered voluntary treatment, and one person passed away. This was part of the briefing provided to the member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, the 10 who were unsuitable for treatment, could you elaborate on that? What constitutes unsuitable for treatment?
Mr VATSKALIS: The member probably did not hear me. Only one was found unsuitable for treatment.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, could you tell us what constitutes unsuitable for treatment?
Mr VATSKALIS: Certain types of criminal history preclude a person from treatment and some people might have mental disabilities as a result of the sniffing.
Mr CONLAN: What sort of criminal activity would preclude someone from treatment?
Mr VATSKALIS: Child sex offences and similar.
Mr CONLAN: Why is a child sex offender unsuitable for treatment?
Mr VATSKALIS: Because the treatment is usually provided through a community-based organisation, and it makes the decision to take such a person or not.
Mr CONLAN: What happens to that person? Are they to be left out in the cold, or is there some alternative treatment program for people who are unsuitable?
Mr VATSKALIS: There has only been one, but it is a difficult situation. We are trying to ascertain how to treat this person in order to satisfy the community safety concerns and, at the same time, provide this person with treatment.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, can you please tell us what circumstances would apply to a person who has been assessed as requiring a treatment order, has already participated in a treatment order, and requires further treatment? Would patients in these circumstances be ruled ineligible for treatment because of the requirement to meet all the circumstances listed in proposed new section 35(2)?
Mr VATSKALIS: Unfortunately, people go for treatment on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, this is the nature of the abuse; sometimes that person will go for treatment again and again.
Mr CONLAN: Proposed new section 35(2):
(e) the person cannot be adequately protected from severe harm in any other way.
Why has the wording changed from section 34(6):
(b) the person cannot be adequately protected from severe harm by some other means.
It does seem to make treatment the last resort and not about early intervention.
Mr VATSKALIS: My understanding is, this is a drafting convention rather than a proposal by the department.
Mr CONLAN: Does it concern you the wording could be interpreted as a last resort as opposed to early intervention?
Mr VATSKALIS: Mandatory treatment is the last resort.
Mr CONLAN: The last resort. I thought the intent of this legislation is to intervene as soon as the situation comes to the attention of the authorities. To me, that is the whole intent of the bill and the act. Why do you consider this to be a last resort? It seems to offend the intent of the bill.
Mr VATSKALIS: We have early intervention by criminalising supply and arresting people who sell. Unfortunately, having to get a warrant to put someone through the court to receive treatment is the last resort, and this is a fact of life. If there is no other measure to do something, we have to rely on this legislation.
Mr CONLAN: There is no right of review of a decision of an assessor, or the Chief Health Officer. Is that correct and, if so, why?
Mr VATSKALIS: My understanding is there is a right of review. Yes, there is a right of review.
Mr CONLAN: Can you please show us where it is?
Mr VATSKALIS: My understanding is the review is part of the court process.
Mr CONLAN: I move on to proposed new section 36. What time frame do you envisage for ‘as soon as practicable’?
Mr VATSKALIS: We spoke about this before. As soon as practicable can mean anything from a few hours to a few days, depending on the individual circumstances and the tyranny of distance.
Mr CONLAN: Proposed new section 37(2)(b), what information will be required to support an application to the court to vary, extend or revoke a treatment order, and who will be able to make such an approach to the Chief Health Officer, and will that include the person receiving the treatment?
Mr VATSKALIS: It will be any update to the previous assessment report, plus any reason or any documents supporting an extension.
Mr CONLAN: Part of my question was: who will be able to make such an approach to the Chief Health Officer?
Mr VATSKALIS: In that case, it is the assessor.
Mr CONLAN: Will that include the person receiving treatment?
Mr VATSKALIS: The people who are receiving treatment are consulted.
Mr CONLAN: Proposed new section 37(1), refers to the Chief Health Officer as the person with the power to make an application to the court to vary a treatment order. However, proposed new section 38 refers to an applicant giving notice that such an application has been made. If the applicant is the Chief Health Officer, why does new section 38 not say so, or is it foreseeable someone other than the Chief Health Officer could apply to the court, and then we do not run into the problems we have with section 37?
Mr VATSKALIS: My understanding is this is the way legislation is drafted; it is a drafting convention rather than requested by the department.
Mr CONLAN: In proposed new section 38(3), why are the words ‘not require a notice to be issued within a reasonable time frame’, not included here? Is it not appropriate to ensure notices are provided within time frames which suit the circumstances of the Northern Territory?
Mr VATSKALIS: This is a requirement by the court; this is what the notice has to include, as required by the court.
Mr CONLAN: Could you elaborate on that please, minister? What do you mean by that?
Mr VATSKALIS: The section makes explicit who must attend the court and who should not.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, proposed new section 38(4) seems inconsistent, to a degree, with the level of responsibility placed on a child at risk who is believed capable of understanding a notice. The act talks about a child being anyone under 18 years of age. Surely an 18-year-old who is deemed capable of understanding a notice, minister, is also capable of understanding their own assessment report.
Mr VATSKALIS: Not necessarily. You have to remember some of these people are affected by sniffing, and may not have the cognitive capacity to understand the report. They would need someone who understands the report. Not every 18-year-old, especially if they have been sniffing for a period of time, will be of totally sound mind and be able to understand the report.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, who makes that assessment? Is that the Chief Medical Officer? Who will make an assessment as to whether or not that 18-year-old is lucid enough to make a decision?
Mr VATSKALIS: This assessment would be done before it reaches court. The assessor would realise the person is not lucid, and would seek and receive medical advice as to whether the person is capable of understanding or not.
Mr CONLAN: Section 40(4) adds a new clause to the act. What is the basis for this, and have any issues arisen during the court’s consideration of applications in recent years?
Mr VATSKALIS: This clause is in the original act. The rest is an amendment. If you look at the original act, section 40(1):
- In deciding whether to make a treatment order, the primary consideration of the court must be the need to protect the person at risk.
It was subsection (1); it is now subsection (4).
Mr CONLAN: Proposed new section 41, is it the procedure for a person at risk to be taken directly to a treatment facility following a court issuing a treatment order, and if not, what arrangements are in place during the period between the ordering of the treatment and the start of the program, and what monitoring of such individuals is undertaken?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, the order is made, but in some cases people have to be relocated to other areas, for example Mt Theo. In the time between the order and the relocation, the person is looked after by specialists.
Mr CONLAN: What monitoring of such individuals is undertaken in that case?
Mr VATSKALIS: They are monitored by the substance abuse specialists.
Mr CONLAN: What happens to children when there is no responsible adult? Are their movements monitored?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, because the monitoring which occurs in the community is coordinated between the police, us, and the health centre.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, can you confirm it would be reasonable, under this act, for a person to be under a treatment order for a period of 36 weeks? That is the initial order, plus a maximum extension order under section 37(1)?
Mr VATSKALIS: The order is up to 16 weeks, not 36 weeks.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, is there not a maximum extension of up to 36 weeks for a person to be under a treatment order?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, a maximum of 16 weeks.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, the explanatory memorandum to proposed new section 41A suggests an application for a treatment warrant can be conveyed to the magistrate by facsimile, or other media, subject to arrangement documented in the regulations. The current regulations do not provide for this. Will this be spelt out in the new regulations? Why does the act not say media rather than telephone, if the intent is to use a range of media to convey a request to the magistrate?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, a number of media will be utilised, and the document will be developed to reflect this.
Mr CONLAN: That will be in the regulations?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr CONLAN: When do you envisage that being in the regulations?
Mr VATSKALIS: We cannot proceed with the regulations until the amendments go through.
Mr CONLAN: By this afternoon?
Mr VATSKALIS: The amendments have to be incorporated and assented; then we will start working on the regulations.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, in proposed new section 41B, the telephone issue, does the same arrangement apply as proposed in new section 41A?
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes.
Mr CONLAN: Why does proposed section 41C not provide for a police officer to execute a treatment warrant?
Mr VATSKALIS: It is clearly spelt out that an authorised officer can execute a warrant, and a policeman is an authorised officer.
Mr CONLAN: It does not specify a police officer. Are you saying because it says authorised officer, all police officers are authorised officers?
Mr VATSKALIS: If you look at the definitions in proposed amendment to section 4, ‘authorised officer means a person appointed to be an authorised officer under section 66 or a police officer’.
Mr CONLAN: The amendment of section 67 (Delegations), changes clause (2) to allow either the Chief Executive Officer or the Chief Health Officer to delegate their powers to an employee. This change is consistent with the transfer of more power to the Chief Health Officer. Can you explain to us what this is about, please, minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: Proposed new section 67(2) of the bill proposes the Chief Health Officer to delegate to an employee any of the Chief Health Officer’s powers. That is a function where an officer can delegate his or her power to another officer. The Chief Health Officer sometimes has to go on holidays.
Mr CONLAN: While I appreciate the need to protect a person referred to in the new section 68(1)(c) from liability, is it appropriate to allow a potentially untrained and unqualified person to assist in the execution of a treatment warrant?
Mr VATSKALIS: This happens in other acts as well. Where a person assists an authorised officer, that person is protected from liability. The person in charge is the authorised officer with the others assisting, so it flows to the assisting person.
Mr CONLAN: Clause 10 ‘Further amendments’, the proposed change from ‘employee’ to ‘a person to be’ in section 66(1) is a rather significant change which allows the minister to appoint anyone to exercise the powers of an authorised officer. Have attempts been made by people not employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act to be appointed as authorised officers? If not, why has this change been made, and who does the minister envisage appointing as authorised officers?
Mr VATSKALIS: The minister has the power to authorise anyone to be an authorised officer. It is clearly stated in the original act. However, the minister will not appoint someone as an authorised officer unless the minister is satisfied this person fulfils certain criteria.
Mr CONLAN: Have attempts been made by people not employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, to be appointed as authorised officers?
Mr VATSKALIS: There is no requirement for it to be a public service employee, it could be anyone; it could be a private sector employee. No attempts have been made to become an authorised person.
Mr CONLAN: That leads me to my question of why the change is being made? Who do you envisage appointing as authorised officers?
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not envisage appointing anyone, but there are provisions in the act in order to provide flexibility for the minister to appoint people as authorised officers, when required. There might be a place without a police officer. As I said before, whatever happens, that person has to undergo accredited training before being authorised.
Bill agreed to, without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I seek leave that the bill be now read a third time.
Leave granted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK: We are now speaking to the motion that the bill be now read a third time. A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I have already put the motion.
Mr ELFERINK: He just moved …
Madam SPEAKER: He did not have to seek leave.
Mr ELFERINK: No, he sought leave, and then he moved …
Madam SPEAKER: He did not have to seek leave, because we went through committee.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. In that case …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion the minister put was seeking leave that the bill be now read a third time. It does not matter whether he had to seek leave. That was the question he asked, so that is the question which was put, and that is the question voted on, not whether the bill be read a third time.
Madam Speaker, if the minister wants the bill to be read a third time, then he brings a motion to this House which says: ‘I move that the bill be now read a third time’ and that can be debated.
Madam SPEAKER: Did you ask for leave, or did you ask that the bill be read a third time?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I asked leave, and I was corrected by you, that leave was not …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Then you moved that the bill be now read a third time?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in the interest of fairness, I heard his question, which was that he sought leave that the bill be now read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Then I asked him to change it.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I ask that he makes the motion properly, and in accordance with standing orders, and not relying on you correcting …
Madam SPEAKER: He has already done that, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He has not done that. I have just been advised by you that you corrected him. He has not made any such motion. I know the member for Greatorex wants to speak in the third reading debate. I believe he should be given the opportunity to do so.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause. Honourable members, I was correct about what had happened, however, in fairness, I will allow the member for Greatorex to speak. Thank you. I remind you it is a third reading speech and you have 10 minutes.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, we will not be opposing this bill; the Country Liberals support volatile substance abuse legislation. However, as I said in my second reading speech, I will be bringing in a bill, at the first opportunity in the New Year, which we believe comprehensively deals with all substance abuse, that is, alcohol and volatile substances. I was not in this Chamber in 2004 when the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act was debated, and passionately read by the member for Arafura. It is a shame she did not get much support from the members opposite.
The minister debated it, but the member for Johnston did not have anything to say on it. The member for Karama has nothing to say on it; she did not say anything on it last time. The member for Barkly did not have anything to say on the bill. It is very disappointing to see the lack of government members supporting such an important bill. I do not know how the member for Arafura feels about this. I know she was very passionate about this, and there is, again, not much support from government members supporting each other.
I guess it highlights the divide in the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory, and the camera stellata tte--ttegoing on between the member for Karama and the member for Johnston today, trying to look as though they really like each other, and are good friends. We do know the truth, but it is okay. It is very disappointing to see the government is not backing up the current minister, as it did not back up the last minister.
I did find it interesting that the minister said - and I do not have a rushed copy of Hansard so I am paraphrasing - he was going to write to the Queensland minister and urge him to make the sale of leaded fuel illegal, and only sell Opal fuel. Is that correct, minister?
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! This is the third reading debate; there is no conversation across the Chamber, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. He did say he was going to write to the minister and urge him to have a particular community’s service station sell only Opal fuel. I do not have the exact words, as I do not have a rushed copy of Hansard, but it is there, and you did say something along those lines. I find it extraordinary that he is prepared to meddle in other jurisdictions, yet in the small community of Rabbit Flat in the Northern Territory, the service station proprietor refuses to sell Opal; flatly refuses to sell it.
The minister is determined to stick his nose into other jurisdictions and demand other states only sell Opal fuel, yet he refuses to do anything about what is happening under our own noses at Rabbit Flat, part of the electorate of Stuart, I believe. I find this extraordinary.
The minister also said this is the first government to bring in comprehensive measures to tackle alcohol abuse. What a load of nonsense; it is absolute rot. You did not have to be here to learn about the Living With Alcohol Program. I did not have to be in Germany to comment on WWII; however, I can. This is not the first government to address alcohol issues in the Northern Territory - far from it. We had an extremely successful program introduced by the former Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, the Living with Alcohol Program. We saw quite significant reductions in alcohol abuse, and a major shift to particular types of alcohol, most notably light beer. I believe that was over a few years, some say five years, I am not sure it was quite that long. The Country Liberals were the first to introduce major reforms when it came to tackling alcohol abuse and the flow-on effects from it.
Taxation changes which came into effect at that time caused the program to cease. Again, minister, sitting here during Question Time trying to grandstand, but people in Central Australia know all too well. You have to live with yourself as a result of that.
It is very interesting that this act distances the minister from the legislation. We have seen, time, after time, this government distance itself from any form of responsibility. It is the tail wagging the dog. Ministers will not make any hard decisions. We saw the member for Barkly today, say he is going to refer this to his department, and his department will get back to him, and then he will make a decision. It is a tail wagging the dog mentality by this government. This is why we are seeing such issues across Central Australia and, indeed, across the Northern Territory. No one wants to make a decision; people are too afraid to make a decision.
The Chief Minister says his government does not believe in mandatory rehabilitation and the only solution the Country Liberals have to addressing the grog problem is to open the bottle shops and sell more grog; that is the only solution we have.
Underpinning our approach to alcohol abuse, and alcohol-related issues in the Northern Territory, is the Habitual Drunks policy. This was very well received at the last election. I reiterate that, for members opposite, who might like to take it on board next time they take a shot at the CLP and spread misinformation, because it only diminishes you, not us. If someone is caught drunk on the street three times in six months they are given a court order and put into mandatory rehabilitation. Once they are in rehabilitation they are given life skills; skills to read and write and trained in something such as driving a forklift.
These are practical measures. It is not about putting them into gaol; it is about putting them in prison farms. We have no intention of filling up Berrimah and Alice Springs gaols with drunks. To say the only solution the Country Liberals has, to address alcohol-related problems in Central Australia, is to supply more grog, is nonsense. As if anyone would do that; and we are clearly not. There is a concrete policy there which you might like to look at.
You can barely bother to take control of your own government with the divisions within your party; it is probably farfetched you would bother to look at a very responsible and practical policy the Country Liberals have put forward.
We all know where they sit on it: they are soft, and like to wrap people up in cotton wool. They have no interest in Central Australia whatsoever; absolutely none. If you look at the 2007 document released by the failed Chief Minister, Clare Martin, who brought great shame upon the Northern Territory by forcing the government’s hand to bring in an intervention as a result of her failures to address child protection; if you look at that document, and you look at it two years later, and see how far they have come …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Greatorex, in the great effort he has done working on this bill for most of today.
He was right when he mentioned the Habitual Drunks policy, because we hear much pontificating from the government about the Country Liberals’ approach to dealing with alcohol in the Centre. We hear them complaining we want to adjust the hours of alcohol sales; the reason we want to do this is because of feedback received from police on an informal basis. We receive information from the community telling us it is better dealing with drunks at certain hours of the day, rather than people being drunk all night.
It is not about the Minister for Health reading the Menzies Health Report, and how they selectively quote and manipulate the figures to come up with this amazing 18%; it is not about how many people have been refused alcohol - utilising those figures I believe it was 8000 he mentioned today.
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Braitling, I am wondering if you realise this is a third reading on the Volatile Substance Abuse Bill.
Mr GILES: I am quite aware of what it is, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: It is about volatile substance abuse, not alcohol. If you could come to the point, please.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We heard figures today on how many people have been refused sale of alcohol in Alice Springs, but we did not hear any figures about how many people have been …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The third readings are relevant to the legislation before the House. I know a deal of latitude was shown to the member for Greatorex, who participated in the committee stage debate, but the member for Braitling is way off the volatile substance abuse legislation debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, while there is a fair amount of latitude you have not, at any point, mentioned volatile substances. If you could …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Member for Braitling, continue, but please speak to the bill, and it is a third reading debate.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I see alcohol abuse as an abuse of a volatile substance. We talk about petrol sniffing …
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: The haters on the other side want to laugh. They are all haters. They really came to the forefront last week when they were specific about who they hate.
However, any abuse of a substance makes you a substance abuser. Whether you are sniffing petrol, using amphetamines, smoking ganja – as the member for Macdonnell referred to - or a habitual drunk, you are a volatile substance abuser. This is a problem in Alice Springs. The real concern is that while the government likes to play political points over a policy - it wants alcohol sold later in the day and we prefer it sold earlier in the day because, on this side, we believe it is easier to deal with. However, the real concern is the government …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is alluding to a debate on a motion to be held in this House tomorrow. He will have his chance tomorrow. He should read the standing orders because what he is talking about regarding alcohol will be debated tomorrow in full in the GBD. I get the feeling the CLP is just filibustering through this whole committee stage. Who knows what their agenda is.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: They have an MPI on board …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … and we are not going to get to it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Leader of Government Business, resume your seat. Member for Braitling, can you come to the point and speak to the bill, please.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Alcohol abuse is abusing a volatile substance. It could be petrol sniffing or any other substance. If you are a substance abuser, you have a chronic illness which is not being appropriately dealt with; whether it is sniffing petrol, using amphetamines, or are habitually drunk, in the Territory, we do not deal with the mental illness or the situation which puts the person there in the first place. This is the point I am raising, and it is relevant to this bill. Throughout the Territory people are not being positively supported in overcoming the disease of chronically abusing substances.
That is the point I am making. While the government likes to talk about this bill - about alcohol, and the changes in the Alcohol Policy - when it does not deal with the mental illness, or the circumstances which drive those people to take those substances in the first place, we are going to continue to see problems on our streets.
That is why the Habitual Drunks policy, mentioned by the member for Greatorex, and launched by the Leader of the Opposition at the last election campaign, was such a positive initiative. We sought to mandate people to receive treatment to alleviate their problems, assist them with their mental illness, and encourage them to be part of society. While we continue to fluff around the edges and not support people in the mental state they are in, we will continue to have these problems.
I see the member for Karama likes to sit and yawn and pay no attention. I am sure she listened when she was told she was hated by the member for Johnston. However, this is a very important issue. Substance abusers need to have support mechanisms in place to overcome the abuse, otherwise we will continue to see a perpetuated form of habitual drunks and habitual petrol sniffers move forward.
Yes, while I commend the advancement of the Opal fuel roll-out and the other initiatives which have taken place, we are still not assisting those people who are transitioning from one product to another - whether it is from petrol to cannabis, amphetamines or alcohol. That is the real concern. I would like to see the government accept some of our policies for dealing with habitual alcoholism, or coming up with their own ideas about how to deal with it.
We know the alcohol courts are not working; we have heard the member for Karama talk about a review because they are not working. At this point in time, there is no solution for chronic abusers of alcohol. All we see is police, every night, picking up drunks, putting them in the cells and back onto the streets the next day. It is a cycle which keeps going on and on in this town. The police are sick of it, the citizens are sick of it, we are sick of it. The alcohol courts have not worked, and it is about time the government did something about it, rather than playing its internal bickering games of who hates who in the Labor Party, while, in Alice Springs, we continue to suffer.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the third reading and emphasise to the minister the need for programs to help communities, families and people in town. We might have tackled substance abuse in our major remote communities, but you have a small core group of children sniffing petrol in town camps. We have to be vigilant to eradicate the problem, and ask ourselves as parents, grandfathers and politicians, do we feel proud we have not done enough?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member has only four minutes and 50 seconds to go. The clock is running.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. There is 10 minutes for the first two speakers in the third reading debate, and five minutes for the others. Member for Macdonnell.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will be very short and fast. I want to ask this House, do we feel proud as politicians, as parents, that we have not done enough? I feel we have not done enough.
Do we feel good in ourselves when we drive home, and drive past the town camps in Alice Springs, and see the horror of substance abuse in these town camps? Can we honestly stand inside this House and say we feel good in ourselves, as human beings, when we go home and lock ourselves inside our houses with nice warm beds and food, while people are suffering in town camps nearby? You have not done enough, not only for Indigenous people in Alice Springs but also for non-Indigenous people in Alice Springs.
The aim of speaking in this third reading speech is to emphasise to this government that there has to be enhancement of a program encompassing families and the community to ensure these children do not fall into volatile substance abuse. For far too long we have watched it increase. In this House this morning I said we have unintentionally lit bushfires because we have not had help. We have the capacity now, with the money which has come to the Northern Territory government, to do more. Can you honestly sit there, minister, and say you have done enough?
I believe you have not done enough. I believe we need more programs. Youth in Alice Springs are struggling; Family and Community Services are struggling. You have offered six or nine beds, this is not enough; you know it is not enough. I do not believe you have admitted it is enough. I believe we need to do better, not only for the remote communities, but also for the town of Alice Springs. We are struggling as a community in Alice Springs. You have done nothing as a government to support Indigenous and non-Indigenous people of this town.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE AND BENEFITS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 58)
(Serial 58)
Continued from 13 October 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I speak on this bill and, I say at the outset, the opposition will not be opposing this bill. The program of Construction Industry Long Service Leave entitlements has been in operation, both in the Northern Territory and other jurisdictions, for quite some time. Whilst the Country Liberals have some concerns about the structure and application of this legislation, the amendment to it is fairly commonsensical, considering the raft of qualified audits this program has received from the Auditor-General.
Further, the Auditor-General has not yet been able to give, as far as I am aware, this long service leave arrangement an unqualified audit report, and there are many reasons for that. The Construction Industry Long Service Leave arrangements are intended to ensure, in the building industry where you have a highly mobile workforce moving from project to project and employer to employer, employees are granted a long service leave entitlement at the end of their completion of 10 years, similar to any other worker. This is notoriously difficult to track, and is one of the reasons building workers have always been traditionally fairly high paid individuals. It was to offset the fact that many of these employees did not receive long service leave, and as they moved from employer to employer, any long service leave they were accruing was paid out on their departure. There was no construction job, as a general rule, which enabled a person to work for a single employer, or on a single project, for a 10 year period.
The union movement was very quick, once it had wall-to-wall Labor in this country, to ensure this industry had portable leave. Why this industry is so special - there are other industries, not entirely unlike the construction industry - is a mystery to me, only illuminated, slightly, by the fact that building unions are very powerful organisations within the labour movement. When they were wall-to-wall, the Labor governments were more than happy to accommodate building workers and their desires in this area.
Moreover, the demonstration of such union influence can be found in our Work Safety Act, and the processes which enable union access to workplaces, purportedly for work safety reasons, even when it does not have members in those workplaces, such access is still generally available in most jurisdictions.
I did want to comment, as an aside, in relation to our welcome to country this morning by representatives from Lhere Artepe. I believe the Mayor mentioned the river was considered to be an upside-down place, and while I was sitting there I realised that has an element of truth in it. In the Top End of the Northern Territory a very common family name is Tipiloura, however you come to Alice Springs and you run into Lhere Artepe; so not only the river runs upside down.
Returning to this particular bill, the scheme has been up and running, receiving qualified audit reports, and I suspect will continue to receive qualified audit reports, but has come to a point where a certain amount of refinement is needed. This is the aspect we are supportive of. Whilst questioning the overall scheme, this makes sense. The government intends, for any project over $1bn, to be assessed on a job-for-job basis as to the contribution in relation to the levy which is imposed upon particular projects. If you can draw two large projects in the Northern Territory as comparisons, you get a fair idea of what the government is attempting to do.
The levy currently runs at 0.5 of 1% on the cost of the project, so for a $1bn project, I believe it is a $5m levy, which is a flat levy across the project. Some projects of $1bn size, for example, the proposed INPEX plant at Middle Arm, will employ some 3000 to 3500 people who will then have a drawdown on the future long service scheme. If you take a similar large project, such as the Alcan Refinery, where the equipment was shipped in, and it has far fewer employees, less than 1000 I believe, the drawdown by future Alcan employees on the long service scheme will be much lower. The impost is inequitable when those two projects are compared.
We understand what the government is trying to achieve and, within the terms of the scheme, it makes perfect sense. You will get no resistance from us.
Second, although it was not mentioned in the second reading debate, I noticed a technical fix in the legislative instrument. The legislation, without having it in front of me, requires a triennial review of this scheme. Most superannuation and long service schemes have a requirement for a triennial review; this scheme is no different. The legislation may be interpreted in a way that only has to occur three years after the scheme was originated, and there was never any intent on the part of NT Build, to restrain itself to a single review after three years. I understand it is tidying up the loose ends so the bill now requires a triennial actuarial review to be done. This is one of the weapons this scheme will have against severely critical qualifications by the Auditor-General and will, hopefully, limit the qualifications the Auditor-General will impose on the scheme in the future.
Beyond that, I do not have much to add. I am not aware of any requirement to go to committee stage; I point that out now. Madam Speaker, we will not oppose this legislation.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill, as the Manager of Opposition Business enunciated. We do not have any great dramas with it. Over the years I have had much to do with trade unions, employer groups, and employer organisations. I understand people in the construction industry felt they were missing out in relation to long service leave. It is good to see this is being done in conjunction with other states, and these benefits are transferable to other jurisdictions.
I note the Victorian scheme is slightly different and is almost a privatised scheme, very similar to industry super funds, where members and employers appoint their trustees or directors of the fund. I suggest the government may want to consider going down this path at some stage in the future, although I do understand with this long service leave fund, the government underwrites the benefits; any liabilities accruing are liabilities of the government.
I note the minister will have the ability, through these amendments, to determine the percentages for work on projects which are over $1bn. When the Treasurer makes these determinations, I hope she will make them in consultation with actuaries. Those projects, as the Manager of Opposition Business said, have the ability to employ small or large numbers of people, depending on the nature of the project. In that regard, I believe it is important the actuaries are involved.
Another thing I believe worth noting in the construction industry, is the particularly high levels of self-employed people. For years now, the complex requirements of employment have, in many cases, led to workers starting their own companies so they are not caught up with the complications of having to deal with many issues. Employers are finding the area of legislation and regulation which applies to the industry make it very difficult for them to devote time to their core business. They sometimes have to divert energy to other areas, such as calculating superannuation requirements, work health requirements, and taxation.
If a person decides to establish a company or a partnership, they can bundle all those costs into the costs they charge the builder, the prime contractor or whoever it is in the construction industry.
I am glad to see this is not a levy set down for employees, because that would further complicate things for employers, and push more people into companies. I am not opposed to people starting companies; on the contrary, I believe, if that is the way employees want to do things, they should be able to do so. However, there are some people who do not want the hassle of looking after their own retirement incomes, accident and sickness covers, or deal with the tax office in the way that you do as a company director.
I have had some dealings with trade unions and people in the construction industry over a number of years. I can see the reasons why people want these schemes in place. Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to support this bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim for indicating their support of this legislation, because they are eminently sensible amendments to the existing Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act. They will provide no barriers to entry to the Territory for major projects over $1bn.
Currently, the scheme is a project-based scheme rather than an employee-based scheme. I note the support from the member for Fong Lim on the employee-based scheme. There has been debate around the nature of a better scheme; whether it is employee-based or project-based. The type of scheme to introduce into the Territory was made by a tough decision by this government in 2004.
The reciprocal rights were not tough, which recognised the movement of construction workers across state jurisdictions to follow the project jobs. However, we were last jurisdiction in the national picture of portable long service leave. The introduction of this legislation in 2004, by the previous Treasurer, the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, and its passage in 2005, brought us back into the national picture.
Why did we go there? The member for Port Darwin mentioned the muscle of the construction unions in Labor. I can say that was not part of the Territory’s consideration. Our consideration was simply ensuring we could attract construction workers into a buoyant construction industry, which we had created in mid-2000 and, of course, we are enjoying the fruits of that labour with an extremely vibrant construction industry in the Territory in 2009
We have been a government which makes no apology for going hard after the large major projects which will bring significant investment to the Territory, and economic benefits and flow-on opportunities for Territorians. Having said that, we needed to look at how our long service leave scheme operates and whether it would be a barrier to entry for those major projects, because it is a project-based scheme.
We recognised if you put a threshold within the long service leave scheme, which this amendment before us today does, we have marked a $1bn threshold point, for project costs up to and including $1bn, the prescribed levy rate applies. This rate is prescribed in the regulations. It is currently at 0.4%, not 0.5%, as indicated by the member for Port Darwin; 0.4% of total project costs. We have used actuarial advice to see if we could adjust the prescribed rate down. I did this as Treasurer, in the midst of the global financial crisis, recognising there were some significant impacts on major companies in wearing project costs in the midst of the economic downturn; the global financial crisis.
I will go to the issue of liability raised by the member for Fong Lim shortly. I did use the help of the scheme, through actuarial advice, to bring the prescribed rate down from 0.5% to 0.4%, listening and responding to industry requests at the time, because of the economic downturn. Significantly, those requests came from the resources sector, and I recognise we were able to respond quickly to the request, because we have a healthy scheme administered by NT Build and overseen by a competent board. For project costs, up to and including $1bn, the prescribed levy rate applies at the current rate of 0.4%. The regulations fit the rate.
In terms of construction costs which exceed $1bn, two levy rates will apply. The first will be the levy rate which applies for up to $1bn of construction, the prescribed rate. The second levy rate, which will apply beyond $1bn in construction costs, is determined by the minister. Picking up on the queries by the member for Fong Lim, the minister is required to direct the scheme actuary to conduct a review to estimate the long service leave entitlements created by the project. The minister must make a determination of the second levy rate based on the actuarial advice. It will not be something I will decide as Treasurer, indeed, there is an actuarial process required in setting the second rate for projects in excess of $1bn.
How does the determined levy rate occur in practice? I believe it is germane to this debate to step through that, so people have an understanding. As the determined levy rate depends on the labour component of the project, this cannot be determined without the cooperation of the proponent. An agreement can be entered into between the NT Build Board and the project proponent. The agreement will allow the scheme actuary to make an interim assessment of the project’s impact on the scheme during the life of a project, and the board can request instalments from the proponent based on this assessment.
The minister may delay making a final determination until such time as the project is sufficiently completed, and a more accurate estimation of the project’s true labour costs can be made. If no agreement on instalments can be reached prior to commencement of the project, the minister can make a determination at the commencement of the project. However, it is likely this estimation would be highly conservative in the scheme’s favour.
I can indicate the construction industry long service leave scheme is extremely well placed. NT Build has a total combined investment portfolio of about $22.6m as at 30 June 2009. Estimated liabilities for the scheme, as at 30 June 2009, were $13.6m. You can see the scheme is well and truly tracking and covering its liabilities.
Liabilities of the scheme are predominantly accrued long service leave benefit liabilities, as determined by the actuary. The scheme’s assets continue to exceed the estimated liabilities.
There is an auditing process in place under section 69 of the act. The Auditor-General audits the NT Build’s financial statements annually. The member for Port Darwin pointed out there have been qualified audits by the Auditor-General regarding the scheme. Those qualified audits address concerns regarding how NT Build is able, or unable, to capture all levy income due under the provisions of the act. That is the aspect of the qualified audit.
The Auditor-General has recommended the current building approval regime be altered to require for a building certificate to be issued, for the construction of a leviable project, being subject to the production of evidence that the developer has notified NT Build of its project.
In my capacity as minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I recently released the building regulation discussion paper. It highlights the matter raised by the Auditor-General and outlines the proposal to amend the Building Act. Submissions on the building regulation discussion paper closed on 20 November 2009, and are currently being reviewed by my department. We have put the Auditor-General’s qualified audit suggestions to the industry. That is a reasonable process to undertake in reforming building regulation. I will be very interested to see how the industry responds to the suggestion of the Auditor-General.
We have a scheme with a very healthy investment portfolio of about $22.6m. It has estimated liabilities of $13.6m, and it undergoes annual audits by the Auditor-General. On the subject of the audit of financial statements by the Auditor-General, we are expecting the annual report to be available for tabling in the February sittings. We are waiting on the sign-off from the Auditor-General.
It is interesting to see, in a practical sense, what is happening with this scheme. It had its knockers when Syd Stirling introduced it; people were doubtful about it. There are questions which the Auditor-General has raised about participation, and how you pick up construction projects into the scheme. I have looked at the number of levy payers who have notifiable leviable construction work and it totals 673. You can see the growth and activity of NT Build.
I take the opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of Theo Tsikouris and his team at NT Build, and the robust chairmanship of NT Build by Barry Chambers who, sadly, because he is leaving the Territory in the future, will step down as Chair. We have encouraged Barry to stay a little longer because he has been a very fine Chair. It has been active in ensuring that people join the scheme. Looking at the annual breakdown of levy payers, which have notifiable leviable construction work: in June 2006 there were 62; in June 2007, 167; and in June 2008, 278. We have seen growth in the number of levy payers. The total of levy payers does not equate to the number of construction projects on which the levy has been applied, because some levy payers have multiple project notifications.
When you look at the workers registered with NT Build, you see why you would have an effective scheme like this. The total number of workers, including labour-only subcontractors, registered with NT Build as at 30 June 2009 is 11 303. That is 11 303 construction workers who have access to a portable long service leave scheme, who prior to 2005, did not.
I am really impressed with the way NT Build carries out its responsibilities relating to compliance with the scheme. Through my role as minister for Infrastructure, I know that construction and pursuing compliance is a difficult area to work in. I want to talk about the compliance activities undertaken by NT Build.
Section 81(1)(b) of the act empowers the registrar to compel a person to provide any information relating to construction work on which the levy is, or may be, imposed. Where a levy payer fails to comply with a notice, the person could be prosecuted for failure to comply with the notice. Twenty-six notices were issued in the financial year 2008-09. The NT Build Board has authorised the registrar to recover debts owing to the scheme directly through the engagement of a debt collection agent and, if necessary, through the Small Claims court.
During 2008-09, three levy payers were referred to the debt collection agent for recovery action. During 2008-09, the board also endorsed a strategic audit and levy compliance program policy. This framework introduced an annual audit program whereby audits of randomly selected construction projects are conducted to ensure levy payers are declaring and remitting the correct levy. All audits are undertaken by contracted, external auditors.
In terms of the combined investment portfolio of the scheme, it is a robust scheme. We have liabilities totally covered by the portfolio of the scheme; and we have a robust and active NT Build engaged actively with the construction industry. Again, I thank and acknowledge Theo Tsikouris for the fine work he has done in ensuring NT Build has been effective and well-known across the construction sector.
We have before us today amendments which are eminently sensible, applying fairness to the scheme in how it is applied to our major projects. Whilst we recognise the scheme inherently has cross-subsidisation, we wanted to make sure we designed the second levy rate to, at a minimum, recover the impact of the project on the scheme and, therefore, maintain its longer-term viability and capacity to fund entitlements for construction workers into the future.
We did not want to over cross-subsidise on those major projects; we struck a fair, equitable and reasonable landing point of $1bn threshold. We will have actuarial advice tied into striking what the rate will be beyond the $1bn, obviously with fairness in the process.
I thank all members for their support. This is an eminently sensible approach which sends a very clear signal to the industry: the Northern Territory is open for business for major projects, and we have ensured our construction long service leave scheme is not a barrier to major projects.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to, bill read a third time.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT (YOUTH PARTICIPATION) BILL
(Serial 59)
(Serial 59)
Continued from 15 October 2009.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is an important bill and it is the opposition’s position that it opens up the possibility for significant and very important cultural change in education and, in terms of the intent of the bill, we will be supporting it.
However, we will be putting forward important amendments to add greater definition to the intent of the bill, and to provide measures which ensure there is effective cultural change to provide every possibility for success at the end of this; measured in the lives of young people and their families. It causes us to ask questions about the purpose of education. In many of the measures here, we have those answered by recognising that young people, who may feel disengaged, are currently able to exit school at the age of 15.
We know that is not acceptable, because, in many cases, they simply opt out. Any local member, or any member of our community, would be well aware of young people who have disengaged. The intent of this bill is to engage those who are disengaged. Amendments have been offered by the opposition to provide greater chances for engagement. We must go beyond wishful thinking and hoping, if we provide broad parameters and guidelines, change will occur. It is not an easy thing to change culture.
For anyone who walks around the shopping centres or our streets, as I do, and spots young people who have disengaged - who are perhaps eight, nine, 10, 11 or 12 - and view education as optional at that age, we have a glimpse into the challenge we face to bring measures to hold someone who is 15-years of age in some meaningful activity until they are 17. We cannot have a nave approach when it comes to such important matters. That is why there will be amendments, to bring more strongly into focus the importance of personal responsibility and where that lies.
It is my view, and the view of the opposition, that personal responsibility, when it comes to young people, rests with the family. An escape clause sits within the Education Act from the bearing of responsibility. To bring about cultural change, I believe we must ensure personal responsibility is brought to the fore. If a child does not attend school, and with the agencies and costly exercises to encourage someone to do the right thing, we find there is still the capacity for a family to say: ‘We have tried everything and nothing works’. Where does the responsibility shift to? If it has shifted to the state, by virtue of a defence, does the state bear the responsibility to cause that young person to get on a productive path?
It is my view, if we consider policies contain the power to effect change, that we are misguided. It lies in the hands of people to effect change. The ones closest to young people 15- to 17-years of age, and younger, are the parents. We need to close that door and create greater definition around the issue of avoiding responsibility - for a good reason. I know at the heart of Labor there will be some grave concerns about reinforcing personal responsibility to effect real change. At the heart of Labor there is a belief that no one is directly responsible. There is a very large degree of discomfort with that notion, this is not so with the Territory opposition. Unless you reinforce the notion of personal responsibility, there will be no cultural change. We are talking about cultural change.
I have been in parliament for 10 years, and I was in education for 17 years before that. I have seen ideas tossed around, and promises of great things occurring. One thing is constant: change; change of policies, change of language, the description of new intents, the spending of new money, and the focusing of new initiatives. We become change-weary when systems and processes change, but we do not see real change. I become concerned, as other members would be concerned, when going around shopping centres, walking through our streets, going through remote communities, seeing that look of disengagement and hopelessness. I see young people uncertain about what it means, what education is about; they know they are escaping something, they think they can escape for a short time and, sadly, some escape tragically.
We need to recognise we have a huge challenge. I must acknowledge the briefing we received was good. We sense the importance of this, and we will play a constructive role in bringing additional definition to make improvements, particularly in the area of bringing the means to effect real change. It is not the change of the system or policies; it is the change of people which is essential to this, or any of our activities.
The general outline in the explanatory statement says this bill seeks to amend the Education Act to encourage young people to participate in productive pursuits. I see the central idea is to prevent youth dropping out, and to establish a framework to require and support a learn-or-earn system, until they are 17-years of age. I know there are families who have arguments with an unwilling young person who does not want to continue at school. Those families would be heartened to know there is a firm stance taken, and the government stands to support their endeavours to get children to do the right thing and continue on.
I know there are many who face that challenge, with young people who think: what the heck, I am out of here, I can do this or I can do that. That has now changed. If this is passed, a child cannot leave, and there will be consequences if they do, which I am pleased to hear, to family support payments and so on. If they are to continue, they continue with education until they are 17, Year 12 effectively; but they do not have to stay at their desk, they can take eligible options. One option is employment, another is an apprenticeship or training. The option of saying: ‘I am out of here and I will spend most of my days wandering around the shopping centre, or dropping out, because I can’, closes. I am grateful for that, and you will have the support of the opposition.
We will explore some of the issues surrounding that. How will this be implemented? I need an assurance from the Chief Minister, the Education minister, about the measures employed to communicate this importance change. It is a very strong and significant message, and it needs to reach not only the kids weighing up all the interesting things they might like to do, but it also strikes at the heart of a family sitting around a table wondering what lies ahead. There is significant import to what education is about. You can stay at school. Why would you stay at school? They are important discussions to give meaning to your activity. Do not just sit at a desk, because that is a problem for teachers who have a student constrained to the desk, by law, until they are 17. It is hard enough as it is. There has to be some very sensible, serious thinking about what happens at school from 15- to 17-years of age. I will come back to that.
There are those who have the eligible option. Are you going into employment? What kind of employment? These are choices which have to be made. What kind of traineeship or apprenticeship will you choose? These will be the parameters of the discussion. It is good to see, but we have to be there for those families.
One, if they stay at school, are there enough tech and trade studies teachers? In my view, no, there are not. I have visited over 30 schools, and some of the middle schools, in particular, in the northern suburbs, have seen a population increase and then decline. These schools have superb facilities and there is no shortage of activity, movement, colour, and light around the arts section, but, when it comes to the tech studies area, it is nowhere near as active or vital. In teaching arts, there are far more females in the system and it is easier to run an art or craft program than it is to find someone with a trade and technical skill. I do not want to be sexist, however, because there are fewer men in the system, with trade and technical skills and a high level of experience, it is quite risky; you cannot have students play in tech studies rooms with circular saws. You need more qualified teachers, male and female, working in the trade and technical area.
Anyone who has worked in schools and knows young people, know there is a whole cohort. They do not mind art, but they want to get their hands on something real, something constructive, something meaningful, and there is less of that than the other. Not to demean arts, but it is plain to see many of our young people, particularly boys, need to have that definition. If you are going to hold them at school from 15- to 17-years of age, you have to continue reinforcing that area.
We need to have robust and creative thinking around how we are going to have trade skills represented in middle and senior schools. Otherwise, it is going to be hard holding them there. I would like to see the trade and technical facilities as well utilised as the arts section. I have seen some good uses of those facilities, most recently at Nightcliff - it was also very good to see the school-based constable - there was a real buzz around it, and we need that.
Second, meaningful career advice: I want to know how many teachers we are going to bring in around this, and how many career advisors will be added. You cannot take a shifted direction and say this is a whole new policy. You have to be there for those who want to engage and who think: ‘I am staying at school, what is there for me?’ They need real career advice which connects with the outside world. It is not constant learning and activity; it is also a connection to industry. What are the career paths available to them? They need direction to join the dots from where they are now to where they could go in several years time.
I would like to know what specific changes will occur in the existing system in that area. If we do not know what is going to be put in place it will be very difficult for those who are working in the schools, those who have chosen to stay at school, and those who are compelled to stay at school. It will create a problem unless it is properly addressed.
For those who take the eligible option of: ‘I think I will go off and get a job. I could go to Woolies or Maccas; I could work for Uncle Bruce at the panel shop, he says he will take me on; or I could do a VET course and do some work there.’ They become the eligible options – ‘I know I am not allowed to drop out, I am going to do something like that.’ That is great, but there is insufficient definition of how you are going to attract these kids. I often ask young boys around the footy club: ‘How did that apprenticeship go?’ ‘I dropped out of that and now I am working here for a while, then I think I will do that’.
Where you have 15-year-olds who have to either stay at school or go down the eligible option of employment or training, many of them have false starts. I know I did; I started out one way and went somewhere else. How do we track those who make one, two, three, or four different decisions? Is it acceptable to say: that is that, they have made their decision and that is the end of the matter? We have to follow them through, the same way kids who stay at school from 15 to 17 are on the roll and you can track them. We must ensure we can track them when they take the other path, otherwise the process, the policy put in place, and the central question of responsibility is left neglected; and this is not the time to abdicate responsibility.
Our amendments will ensure there is effective tracking. If tracking shows, through monitoring, they have tried one, two, three things and said: ‘that is too hard for me; I think I will just lie low for a while and do nothing.’ It would logically be the equivalent of a kid going to school, giving it a shot and thinking: No, I am not going to turn up next Monday, I have been doing this for eight months and I am sick of it; I am just going lie low, and I will not turn up - see how long it takes for the systems to kick into gear.
If you are in school, there would be a call to the family. The question would then rest on the family: What are you doing? You have responsibility to ensure your kid goes to school. Section 22 of the Education Act provides the power for a penalty to be imposed upon the family for not doing what they should do, because if there is no responsibility sheeted home anywhere, then we have condoned child neglect. They may not like it, but anyone who has raised young people knows there are times they do not like a difficult measure, but it will be good for them in the longer-term.
The intent of this is good, and you cannot leave this area unattended. That is why the amendments will ensure you do not have the situation of a kid saying: ‘I have tried this and I have tried that and I am not going back to school. I have had a shot at that traineeship. I worked at Woollies for a while but the lady was nasty to me and I am not going back, so I am free.’ The responsibility in that situation should rest with the family, and yet there is provision for a defence. The family can say: ‘We tried everything, and what can we do?’ Is there nothing they can do? No, I do not believe that is the case. Responsibility does not disappear, or evaporate, ultimately, it goes from one place to another.
In the view of the Territory opposition, it stays with the family. Obviously, there is a challenge, if that family cannot come up with a response, borne out of its need for responsibility. You can have some sense that, yes, they have challenges. You cannot just walk away. There needs to be a place they go. We have discussed this, and the concept the opposition supports is the family responsibility agreement. That seems to be the right place to go. If a family says, ‘We have had no end of difficulty’, the existing system says, ‘Yes, I know it is hard so that is a defence’. If you have had no end of difficulty, the matter should then be referred to the agency to consider a family responsibility agreement.
I know some in the government would be horrified and think: they have not really done anything wrong. But, we will have all done something wrong if we exempt someone from responsibility, because it does not disappear, it lodges on the state and, ultimately, we pick up the tab. If a child under 17 is not going to school, or going down the traineeship path and drops out, the responsibility sits with the family. The family responsibility agreement could be any manner of things but, at least it provides you with the capacity for underlying issues to be dealt with. I would much prefer to see effort put in there, than for it to fall on the ledger of the state, where the state has to manage.
We are taking on a huge responsibility the moment we move away from parental responsibility. It is almost as though we are evicting the parents off the scene. The child is 15; he can make up his own mind. If that is the case, it becomes the responsibility of the state to manage. I do not think the state is the best way to deal with children. It should be families. If families have challenges, let us have the courage to assist the family in coming to a better place so they can play a more constructive role. The moment we back off, we create greater problems.
I am looking forward to hearing from members opposite how this will work in real terms. I accept we are starting from a long way back, but one, two, three or four steps closer to the goal would be useful. To raise hopes and have them dashed is the last thing we should do.
I want to hear more about the coordination and focusing of the joint effort between the federal and the Territory government, so the combined efforts, brought together in a more streamlined manner, can give us a greater chance of success for those remote kids, and their families. I urge members opposite not to be fainthearted when it comes to the issue of parental responsibility. If we are fainthearted and we believe it may be hard, the other path does not lead to a place I want to be; and our community does not want to go there either.
We have seen too much reduction of responsibility when it comes to families. To think that it is punitive, harsh or unpleasant to impose or require responsibility, or to put a family in a position where they need to consider their role; it is the opposite, if we walk away from it. Though the rhetoric was particularly strong and pitched in a political context, at a time when the Labor government was preparing for an election, the language and ideas around family responsibility agreements were couched in the terms of criminal activity and antisocial behaviour and so on; we have heard the talk.
We know the dots connect. If a child, who is 15 or 16, opts out, and they are wandering around and the family says: ‘what can we do?’ More likely, than not, they are not going to succeed. Why not get in early? Why not bring in the efforts of those agencies? There are so many parenting programs. Why not at least make the effort to connect the family, with help through an agreement, rather than saying: ‘you tried, what can you do’? The court should send them to an agency to work on something together.
The disturbing thing is that there are some mixed messages about how many families have gone through these responsibility agreement exercises. I understand there were about six, and everyone had an expectation it was about plasma screens and such things; that was for presentation purposes, to create a political impression.
We are serious in this House, and we are talking about serious matters. If we are going to bring about cultural change in education and get kids engaged properly, we have some serious questions to answer. A fact sheet from the Department of Health and Families outlines: ‘What is a Family Responsibility Agreement?’ What will the agreement contain? The third point says:
- A Family Responsibility Agreement will contain information about the actions parents, the young person, and other family members are encouraged to take to make the agreement work. These actions will take into account the special needs and circumstances of each family and may include:
In this case, it is either at school or the path they have decided. It continues:
… avoid contact with certain persons, or stay away from certain places.
In the first step, I would prefer to put the effort in to the family, than immediately transfer it to the local police. You have a greater chance of doing something of lasting benefit, than passing it off somewhere else.
With that said, we support this. There will be, in the committee stages, some matters with the amendments specifically around the tracking and monitoring of those who go down the eligible option pathway, and also for family responsibility elements to be enhanced which, in the view of the opposition, would strengthen this legislation to effect the necessary change.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the Education Amendment (Youth Participation) Bill, which comes before this House following agreement in April this year at COAG, with the announcement of a national youth participation requirement. In essence, this will require young people all around the country, including the Northern Territory, to complete Year 10 secondary education as a minimum and, thereafter, to continue in full-time education, training, employment or a combination of those, until they reach the age of 17 years. It has become known euphemistically as the ‘earn or learn’ approach.
While this legislation will be enacted around the country, the models for implementation will vary between states and territories, recognising that we all operate in different environments; this is so true for the Northern Territory. At COAG, it was agreed the commencement date would be 1 January 2010. It is legislation I welcome, and I believe the wider community also welcomes it.
The Northern Territory has been amongst a minority of Australian jurisdictions which has had legislation allowing young people to depart the school system at a very young and immature age, of 15 years. It is simply too young, and has been reflected in youth unemployment statistics.
Earlier this year, I had a constituent ask why the Northern Territory government allowed children as young as 15 to leave school. Her daughter, in the previous year and, on the occasion of her 15th birthday, left school. Whilst against her parents’ wishes, they were powerless, in the face of a strong-willed youth to see her return to school and did everything they could to support her into training and employment, which proved unsuccessful. My constituent was so distraught, that she wished she had never moved from Western Australia, where her daughter would, under law, have been required to remain at school until 17-years of age. It was a difficult question to answer, however I could tell her this was changing. Small comfort for my constituent, though I did give her some assurance her son, at the age of 14, would be remaining at school. It will be positive reassurance for other parents of teenagers when this legislation is enacted.
No one would disagree that, as a government, we need to ensure the very best possible start in life for young people. By requiring them to participate in full-time education, training, or employment, or a combination of these, the additional opportunities for young Territorians will translate into enhanced capacity for employment and earning potential. It is these outcomes which, as a government, we must strive for, not only for the benefit of young people and young adults, where the rewards for them and their lives are implicit and tangible, but it is their participation in education and training, leading to employment outcomes, which are key to our ability to grow the Territory. This is why this government places such strong importance on education being at the core of the Territory’s future and Territorians’ futures. We can only grow our Territory if we grow our people, especially our young ones. It has been recognised as the linchpin of the Territory 2030 strategy and underpins the Working Future policy, which is so critical for remote areas and Indigenous people.
There has been much research undertaken, both in Australia and overseas, which provides very strong evidence that the longer a young person stays at school, the greater the opportunity for participation in further education and training, vocational or otherwise, and sustainable employment. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, those who leave school early are two and-a-half times more likely to be unemployed. I suspect that figure to be much higher in the Northern Territory, and I further suspect those higher unemployment rates are in remote and very remote areas.
In this vein, I noted in the Chief Minister’s second reading speech that it was:
- … difficult at this stage to determine the actual number of young people in the Northern Territory who will be affected by the reforms, ABS data indicates that in 2008 the size of the disengaged cohort was in the order of 530 15-year-olds, and 690 16-year-olds.
As a bush member, I note approximately 44% of young Territorians live in remote or very remote areas, and the Chief Minister is quite correct when he notes it is in remote locations the most significant reforms will need to occur. Strategies and action plans to support these reforms have already commenced, and include my electorate; however we have barely scratched the surface. There is such a long way to go, an enormous amount of work and funding, to deliver the commitment to reform our current system and see participation in education, training, employment, or a combination of these.
I could list a number of very good things happening in remote and very remote areas to support children and their ongoing education. I have seen online the A Working Future newsletter put out by the member for Arnhem, as the minister responsible for that area. This highlights the recent opening of the $5.4m upgrade to Borroloola School. It also notes $18.2m of funding dedicated for teacher housing in nine remote communities, which will translate into approximately 50 dwellings. In my electorate of Nhulunbuy, the community of Yilpara will very soon see the opening of a new school building, to which $2m has been dedicated, along with two teacher houses built on the community at the end of last year, taking the community to small school status in the near future, as opposed to a homeland learning centre.
Currently under way around the Northern Territory is consultation regarding those three regions which will be affected by, and benefit from, funding from the Commonwealth which will see boarding facilities installed. This will enable secondary students to board on the community; and one of those will be in the East Arnhem region. The consultation period has been quite robust, with various communities wanting to have a say in where they believe the boarding facility should go. In my electorate it is all about keeping kids on country, and that is the view my homelands people share. The community of Garthalala has its fingers crossed the boarding facility will be located there. Last year the community saw the first ever homeland students graduate with a Year 12 Northern Territory Certificate of Education. They have much to be proud of, and there is a good deal to be said for keeping kids on country, when we are looking at best outcomes in employment, training and education.
We have the education strategy for 2009-12, an important document entitled A Smart Territory, which puts the spotlight squarely on raising the bar on expectations, and building a culture of high expectations and quality education, as well as addressing expectations about the value of education and training. It includes the Families as First Teachers Program which, as its name implies, targets parents as their children’s first teachers. The Leader of the Opposition expressed a desire to see some of the steps we are taking closer to that goal; Leader of the Opposition, here is one of several.
A Smart Territory document includes and highlights the need to dramatically improve school attendance, which goes hand-in-hand with improving literacy and numeracy outcomes for our Indigenous students. We have witnessed, in remote and very remote areas, decades of low expectations; acceptance that non-attendance, while definitely not okay, has been hard to deal with and, as a result, too many youth are relegated to the domain of the long-term unemployed, because they do not have the basic literacy and numeracy to engage in the broader economic activity of their community through real jobs. Too many of these people are part of the generation of welfare dependent people who suffer all too much from related social and economic problems. Sadly, it is a story all too familiar to us, and it is not isolated to bush electorates, and it is not isolated to the Northern Territory.
In broad terms, it is imperative we focus on student engagement in learning and support the process to enable them to succeed. We need to ensure we offer students a curriculum which is meaningful, relevant, interesting, and supportive of their own interests. We also need to increase funding to provide more pathways to careers through Vocational Education and Training options. This is especially so for young people in remote areas, where we need to match education and training needs to the economic activity, or the potential economic activity, of the community. I have witnessed in my electorate of Nhulunbuy, a growth in the number of people taking on roles in places like Yirrkala and Galiwinku, as well as those in their homeland communities.
Those employment opportunities have come about through the East Arnhem Shire’s Caring for Country programs as rangers, through eco-cultural tourism ventures, art, and Rio Tinto Alcan’s ALERT program. However, the barrier for increasing the numbers of Yolngu in more real jobs is twofold. First, as I have already mentioned, it is the lack of literacy and numeracy, where young people have disengaged from the education process for all sorts of reasons. Second, a lack of recognition that education, training and work is something we value because it empowers us and can change lives; education and learning, in broader terms, is something which is lifelong.
People I speak with, who live on communities in my electorate, want to participate in training, want to work, want the opportunities, the self-determination, and the control over their lives and their communities, and to live independently and not to be reliant on others or on welfare. Many of the older people tell me they want the very best future for their young ones, and recognise that future is inextricably linked to education.
Recognising the needs of Territory students are diverse, the greatest body of work will, most definitely, be in remote locations, where we will see the most significant reforms to ensure young people compulsorily participate in education, training and employment up to the age of 17 years. This is why the A Working Future policy has education at front and centre.
The opportunities in education and training for youth are a world away from my schooling days in the 1970s, where the curriculum was, for want of a better word, traditional, and post-school options centered around participating in areas such as the retail or business sector, labouring, maybe joining an arm of the Defence Force or the police force, maybe undertaking a trade apprenticeship, training to become a teacher or a nurse, studying to become a doctor, a lawyer or a scientist.
Our world has become much more diverse, and we have advanced technologically and, with it, such an enormous raft of options for young people considering their futures. We are also in an era where, by and large, most young people have greater freedoms, much greater access to information, and a society which is more tolerant, expressive, and far more liberal, where young people are seen and heard. For this reason, it is simply unthinkable we would allow 15-year-olds to opt out of the system. However, at the same time, we need to support them to explore and make the best decisions possible. This comes with the provision of strong, coordinated student welfare support, and access to career advice support. When I was at school, there was no school counsellor, no school nurse, and there was no school-based policeman, and the Year 12 coordinator or the assistant principal doubled as the careers advisor.
To support these reforms in the Northern Territory, the government is on the front foot. Members in this House would have seen an announcement from the Chief Minister last week, regarding the graduation of more than 75 newly-qualified career advisors over the past year, as well as the introduction of personal learning plans for all Year 10 students in the Territory to help plan their futures. As the Chief Minister said in his media release:
- Students with no idea of what they want to do beyond Year 10 are receiving more structure, more guidance, and more options to become work ready’.
I am the parent of a 16-year-old and, while she does have a plan around where she wants to be and what path she wants to be on, the thought of her leaving school at 15 or even 16 is unthinkable. At the same time, I know some parents are seriously challenged by their children, especially headstrong teenagers. On that note, I attended a workshop at Nhulunbuy High School last week on a newly launched and very powerful online tool for parents, students and teachers: the ESP System, or the Electronic Student Profile, which tracks all sorts of data including attendance, enrolment and achievement data. This helps us track our kids around the Territory, as well as when they move from school to school.
Once again, Leader of the Opposition, this is another step which takes us closer to the goal of having students remain at school. You can find out where they are, and if they are not at school, why not.
The presence of school careers counsellors is imperative in ensuring our young people are informed about their options, and supported in making choices so we can provide clear pathways to further education, training and employment.
As the Chief Minister said in his second reading speech, this bill, and the national youth participation requirement, applies to all young Territorians, including those with disabilities, to ensure they are able to access suitable education, training or employment opportunities, the same as their able-bodied classmates. To this end, last week’s announcement, from our Chief Minister and minister for Education, regarding $30m to be invested in upgrading special schools over the next five years. I am sure it is of great interest to the people of Alice Springs to know that Acacia Hills School will receive $5.6m, from that $30m, for its special needs students. This is not only good news for special needs students, but a clear signal this government places a high priority on inclusivity and supporting all students to achieve the very best outcomes possible. It is so important for young Territorians, who have special needs, that we invest in their education so their post-school options and horizons are enhanced, and they too have the opportunity and the right support to enable them to participate in education, training, and employment.
This has become very apparent to me, in my electorate, in understanding the enormous efforts of Nhulunbuy High School’s special annex, its teachers and support staff, children and their families, and their very hard work in establishing an important project known as the Grow Zone, which is modelled on The Patch in Leanyer, which I visited recently. It is important these young people with disabilities do have the opportunity and support to be involved with and engaged in productive and meaningful work, so they can derive satisfaction and a level of independence in their young lives.
Implementing the reforms necessary to support the new participation requirements is a huge task which will take time and considerable funding, however, to leave things the way they are, and do nothing, is simply not an option. I note, as the Leader of the Opposition says, we are talking about a culture change which we need to drive in the Northern Territory. For me personally, as an elected member of the government, while I find it very clear about what we need to do and why we need to do it, I do confess, at times, I find it almost overwhelming to fully grasp how we implement these reforms. I believe this is the very thing the Leader of the Opposition was talking about. I am confident we will see these reforms implemented in order to create a better future for our youth, and a better and surer future for our communities and for the Territory.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on that note, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is a very important bill. It raises issues of great concern to anyone who has raised children, because they want their children to be educated and have the best opportunities they can in life. What this bill is attempting to do, and whether it succeeds only time will tell, is say to young people: ‘you cannot leave school unless you get a job or continue training, you cannot hang around the shopping centres or the footy oval, you are required by law to either stay at school, do more training, or get a job,’ and I believe that is fair.
The issue before us is how is it going to work in practice? I note the Leader of the Opposition has a series of amendments today. I have no problems supporting what he said today. I believe we all agree more effort is required to encourage young people to stay at school.
That is easier said than done. If we know many children, especially in remote communities, are not going to school, the question is: how is this going to work? How are we going to send children to school who simply do not want to go, and are disconnected from their parents? The problem we have is that we are dealing with humans, who have human problems, and nothing is black and white when dealing with this issue. A child may not be at school for a variety of reasons: the parents might have broken up; there might be alcohol and drug problems at home; there might be overcrowding in the house and there is no opportunity to study. He may come from a family where generations have never been to school, similar to those out bush who have never been employed, so, why bother going to school?
We might tell kids they need to go to school but if you live in a community where 80% of the people are unemployed, who are you trying to convince? It is very difficult to send a child to school if there is no future for them; this has to be part of this debate. I have said this many times, I said it at the Council of Territory Cooperation yesterday, if we do not create employment in remote areas then we are continuing a life for people on welfare. We show no reason for young people to go to school. Whilst this bill is worthwhile and commendable, the question is: what difference will it make if we do not do other things in conjunction with what we are trying to put forward today?
Education for education’s sake is a waste of time. I will give you an example, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you will probably relate to it. Some years ago, the school on Bathurst Island would turn out 20 young fellows with a welding certificate. Where are there 20 welding jobs on Bathurst Island? There is not. We have to create employment which is specific and can give people opportunities. We also have to change a culture which will be extremely difficult to change.
I remember the minister for Family and Community Services making a speech at the Training Centre at Bathurst Island saying there will not be enough jobs for everyone; they will have to move. This does not mean it is not their home and they cannot come back to it. The reality is, for people to get better jobs, to use the education and skills they have achieved, they will have to move off their country. They may be lucky and have tourism and be on a good wage, or someone has found gold, or bauxite or uranium; people might be able to get employment. But, as is the case in many remote areas, people will have to look for work elsewhere.
Looking at the act, it is obvious the government is saying you have to stay at school longer. It is in keeping with the national program, which is part of the COAG agreement, and we understand that. The government has set out in the bill a number of ways to keep track of a child who is not going to school. I must admit, you have to wonder how it will work in a practical way. Proposed new section 31A(1), ‘Inquiries about Participation in Eligible Option’, says:
- For the effective administration of this part in relation to the requirement for a child to participate in an eligible option, the Chief Executive Officer may make the inquiries the Chief Executive Officer considers appropriate.
It gives a feeling someone will have to dob in someone they know, or he will need to get the information elsewhere. I wonder if it should be more proactive, similar to what the Opposition is putting forward; something which requires the department to find out who is not going to school, work, or an eligible option. The section appears to be a little weak to me.
In relation to keeping young people in remote areas at school, one has to look at the issue of which school they attend. This mentions online studies, however, the reality is, we have young people living on outstations where they have no chance of secondary schooling unless they leave. How will it work for those children? The requirement is they must reach Year 10 or, at least, the age of 17 years. How will this work in those areas? We do not have growth towns yet, so we do not have places where people can go from outstations to high school. Are you saying that a child who lives on an outstation, and has not completed Year 10 or attained the age of 17, is in breach of this act? Will you also say that young people, in a community which only has a middle school and where there are no jobs, are in breach of this act once they leave school, even though there is no employment?
We need to look at issues occurring on the ground. Does it mean you will force a child to find a job in another place, as I discussed earlier? I believe the real challenge will be applying this amendment in remote communities; that is the key to these changes. How many times have people raised the question of attendance rates in schools? How do we fix it? We have put in more words to fix it, but will it work?
I say to the government, if this is going to bring change, show it does by showing the figures. Will attendance increase? The reason we introduce legislation is because we want change. We are saying we need to increase attendance rates, and this legislation is supposed to achieve that.
The other difficult area, in forcing kids into school, is the 14-, 15-, 16-year-olds who you might force to school, but sho do not want to study; they sit there and do not care. How do you deal with this? There will be young people who will be a nuisance; they do not want to be there, but they have been told they have to be. How do you deal with that? They are practical issues. There are young people who do not what to go to school, and to force them to may not achieve anything; it may only cause disruption for those who want to study.
I raise those issues as practical problems in achieving results with this legislation. I do not believe it will be easy; I do not believe anyone here would say getting young people to school who do not want to go is easy. I will be interested in the government’s approach. I do not have all the answers; however I believe we need to look at the big picture. If there is no employment in communities, why bother going to school? I believe that is part of the package we have to look at.
I know there will be discussions over the amendments the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. I will say at the outset, I am not going to support those amendments. I do not believe you should take that to mean there is nothing good in those amendments, but they were put to me at about 8.30 pm last night, and my brain had nearly dissolved after a Council of Territory Cooperation meeting.
There are some good points in the amendments the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. I had briefings today from the Leader of the Opposition’s staff, and the department of Education. I have been working through each amendment, and I know what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do. I totally agree that we have to put more teeth into what we are doing; there has to be a certain amount of force and a certain amount of carrot. We need to encourage children to go to school because they want to, not because we force them to. There needs to be a balance, and it is not so easy.
I would have liked more time to go through the new amendments; they are close to what the government wants to see. That is the feeling I have when talking with both sides. It is a pity we did not have more time to put concerns from both sides into this bill because we would have achieved a more wholesome bill.
There are a number of concerns I have discussed with the Leader of the Opposition. One is the lack of penalties in relation to parents being obliged to put the names of their children on a register or a report to the CEO. The Leader of the Opposition said it is in another act somewhere, which may be the case. However, with the time and thorough attention I have had to give this bill and these amendments, it is difficult for me to say I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition is doing without asking about the repercussions; I have not had enough time to take that into account. It would be foolish for me to agree with an amendment if I did not know whether I had looked at all the practicalities and repercussions.
I totally agree with the Leader of the Opposition; we need to do more and we need to reinforce the idea of going to school. However, I do not believe I have had enough time to work through it and decide whether I would support it. There are sections which are good. I understand where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from with the family responsibility agreements. The department has said it already does that because it is allowed to issue family responsibility agreements without going to court.
If this was given a little more time we might have achieved something both sides would agree to. In my position, it is dangerous to decide, without having enough time to think about what is being put forward, especially when it comes to amendments and their ramifications. It would be unwise for me to agree to those amendments. However, I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition is attempting, and I believe the Chief Minister also agrees. We could have brought these points of view together if we had a little more time. The amendments were given to me last night and there are good things in them, however, I am not sure, without having gone into them deeply, and discussing them more, I would be doing parliament a favour by declaring they are a great idea and therefore should support them.
I support the bill the government is putting forward. I believe there are some issues in relation to it. I do not believe you can have a bill like this and not have other things go with it; otherwise it becomes a sheet of paper and that is all. We need a range of policies to go forward with youth participation. Youth participation is on the top of this bill, youth participation in what? Unemployment. If that is the only youth participation in remote areas, this is a waste of time. We need to create employment in remote communities. It is a pity we did not look at putting INPEX at Port Keats. We are Darwin-centric when it comes to developments; remote communities are begging for work. We need employment opportunities in remote communities otherwise we might as well shut them down because they will be welfare towns forever. If we cannot do that, we are not doing ourselves a service at all. We are looking at the main centres and saying it is fine, but we are not looking at the future for Indigenous people in those areas.
I support the bill, with those suggestions. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his amendments. I believe this debate will be ongoing, because kids are growing up all the time and some will not want to go to school. The government needs to show this bill is working. I would like to see figures on the non-attendance rate at the beginning of this year, because the bill is meant to commence on 1 January 2010, then let us see what happens to the attendance rates on 1 January 2011. The proof has to be in the pudding. Introduce the legislation, but if we do not have the means to change things, then it is only a piece of paper. I look forward to the enactment of this bill, and I will follow its progress.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have heard it all now. The member for Nelson is all over the shop. He rants about the problems with this bill; they are there for all to see. We all know there are problems with it. He talked to the Leader of the Opposition, and he thinks he is on the right path, but is not going to support the amendments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
People talk to me about the Labor member for Nelson, and he confirmed that, to all and sundry, today; the man is nothing but a Labor toady. He is here, backing up his Labor mates, securing his deal he has put together …
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am calling order. There is much chattering in the Chamber. Member for Fong Lim, direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am directing my comments through you. Listening to the Labor member for Nelson, the position he has arrived at defies logic. If he thinks so greatly about the comrades on the other side of the House, maybe he should spare a thought for Malcolm Turnbull and members of the opposition. This morning they were hit with a massive agreement by the Rudd Labor government, and are being given until some time tonight to make a decision on a bill which will affect Australia for generations to come; a bill which will cost Australians billions and billions of dollars, and they have been given a very short time to debate it amongst themselves and work out a policy position.
Unfortunately, we have a situation where the Labor member for Nelson decided to sit up late last night with the CTC and has not been able to turn his mind to this. He knows it is a dud, but he is going to back his Labor comrades. That is how this works; it is exactly how this works. He understands the Leader of the Opposition has put forward sensible amendments, but he is not going to support them. He is going to vote against them, because he has had almost a day to get his head around it, but no, his mind, I believe he said, is stewed, that was about the only true statement he made: his mind is stewed.
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, we are being helpful.
The Chief Minister’s second reading speech is full of admirable goals and wonderful aspirations. I do not believe there would be a single person in this House who would not want to see better-educated young Territorians. We want to see kids going to school and learning, we want to see them in employment, gaining skills and getting work. That is all great. However, do not listen to what these guys say; look at what they do. We have seen this happening in the past. We get these wonderful, flowery speeches with wonderful goals and desires, and what do we see at the end of it?
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: We are getting onto Tiger Brennan Drive and the Oncology Unit.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I will take the Chief Minister up on his interjections about Tiger Brennan Drive and the Oncology Unit. We saw this situation happen. We are being told of Working Future towns, places are education hubs. We have seen a government, which was given $700m two years ago to build emergency accommodation for Indigenous people who are living in massively overcrowded circumstances, and what do we have two years down the track? How many houses? None. No houses whatsoever.
This government said in 2001: ‘We need an Oncology Unit. It is a commitment we are making. We are going to budget for it in our mini-budget’. It budgeted $14m. Here we are in 2009, and how much money has the Territory government put towards it? Zero; not a cracker, it is 2009, and it is still not completed.
I visited the site recently and had an interesting briefing. It does look good, but it is still not operational, more than eight years after it was first promised.
We are now being told by this government they are going to create education hubs in the bush, and people will turn up en masse and learn. Not only will they learn, when they leave those education hubs they are going to get real jobs in these Working Future towns. That is what we are being told. You have to ask the question.
I believe the Labor member for Nelson did a reasonably good job in outlining some of the problems he saw with this plan. How can you expect a child to go to school and receive an education when there is no one in the town with a job? Their parents, uncles, or friends do not have a job, practically no one in the town - 80%, I believe, was the figure the Labor member for Nelson came up with - 80% of people do not have jobs.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I remind you it is the member for Nelson, and he is not a member of the Labor Party. I ask you to refer to him as the member for Nelson, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I refer to him as the Labor member for Nelson, as does most of the Northern Territory, because of what he has done in this particular debate.
Madam SPEAKER: In this Chamber, he is the member for Nelson. Member for Fong Lim, in this Chamber, he is the member for Nelson. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, he is the member for Nelson. I am the member for Fong Lim. You are the member for Nightcliff, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, when I am in this Chair I am the Speaker. You will continue and be respectful, or I will ask you to resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I apologise for referring to you by your seat. I see the member for Johnston sitting there smiling, the member for Wanguri, and the lazy member for Daly, the member who cannot connect the power or build a single house, despite the fact he has had $700m for two years; the member who readily admits he made a mistake.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I call relevance, and maybe the member for Fong Lim could come back to this education bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, the bill we have before us is called the Education …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The Education Amendment (Youth Participation) Bill 2009. I would like you to speak to the bill, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I was speaking to the bill. This bill is a pipe dream; it is a flowery statement cooked up by some wonderful spin doctors on the 5th floor, designed to make the government look like it is doing something. The reality is this government does nothing, and I was merely pointing out, particularly in relation to the member for Daly, a history of failures, a history of terrible, shambolic failures. Everything the member for Daly touches turns to custard.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The Chief Minister can interject as much as he likes; he does not get pulled up when he interjects.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! You may continue, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, when you go through this you see we are now going to ensure every person finishes Year 10; a wonderful plan - great to see everyone is going to finish Year 10, but you have to ask the question: How? When you look at how some remote communities operate, a large majority of people cannot even get through primary school, yet somehow we are going to push these people through to Year 10. You also have to ask the question, member for Nelson, what about disruptive kids, who do not want to be at school, and will be forced to go?
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about family responsibility agreements and parental responsibility, getting parents involved as opposed to having the state involved; however what happens when those agreements break down, as some inevitably will. What is the consequence? Do we keep these kids in school disrupting other kids who want to work and learn, or do we have consequences for kids who muck up and cause grief for other kids? Where is the talk of reform schools? Where is the talk of schools of last resort?
There is nothing in this bill which the Chief Minister has put up – sorry - the minister for Education or the member for Wanguri; I do not know what title you are allowed to use in this House.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I remind you, it is, in fact, the Chief Minister. It is quite rude to refer to the Chief Minister as the member for Wanguri in a debate.
Mr TOLLNER: I would not want to be rude. I withdraw my reference to you as the member for Wanguri, Chief Minister. There is no detail anywhere in relation to this. Where is the parental responsibility? Where are the consequences for people who stay at school and disrupt other kids? There seems to be no consequences whatsoever.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the Australian Technical Colleges, and involving industry more in their requirements for future workers. One of the great strengths of the Australian Technical College concept, which the previous federal government had, was its involvement with industry; the fact the boards of technical colleges were made up of industry representatives and contracted the educational expertise required to meet its needs. These things were set up by the industry, were there to meet the demands of industry, and were very compatible with industry requirements, something completely lacking in some educational institutions at the time. I know this government opposed, quite vehemently, the set-up of the Australian Technical College in Darwin; it fought against it and made sure, in every possible way, it could get rid of it. Immediately there was a change of government, it started to derail the Australian Technical College.
As I go through the documents, I look at the promises, the wonderful aspirations, the admirable goals, the pipe dreams, and I look at who is paying. There is no commitment by this government to fund anything. It is all a pipe dream; a wish. As I say, do not listen to what they say; look at what they do.
When dealing with people, a certain amount of trust is built up over time. Someone says they are going to do something, you trust them to do it, but they do not do it. The next time they say they are going to do something, you are a little wary, but you go with them, and they do not do it. The next time they ask to do something for you, it is unlikely you will trust them again. This government has built up a track record of broken promises - absolute broken promises. It is disheartening, and must be massively disheartening for parents, in particular, and the Territory community who are at the end of these promises - who think they are going to get a good deal out of the government and see it turn a custard. It happens time and time again.
This is the government, the member for Nelson - the toady for the Labor Party - has decided to support. He appears to believe it is okay for governments to constantly break promises, make flowery statements, and not deliver. This is the person we are dealing with; the community knows it. We might not be able to utter it in this Chamber, but that is the reality. That is the nonsense the member for Nelson is supporting. He says he appreciates the Leader of the Opposition’s integrity and he understands the reasons behind the Leader of the Opposition’s amendments, but will fail to support them. I do not know how he reconciles these things, apart from the fact he is now a team player, well and truly, within the Labor Party. He is part of the great Labor team; part of the comrades. It is laid bare for all to see in this debate - laid completely bare.
There are some aspects of this bill which cannot be ignored. I urge people in this House, particularly when it comes to committee stage, to stay in the Chamber, to listen closely to the Leader of the Opposition’s amendments, and determine what should be done in relation to this bill. It is a delicious read; it is like a wonderful dream. You believe it would be great if these things could happen. We want to see many of these things happen. Unfortunately, it lacks in detail, and we are saddled with a government of broken promises.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I must say, from the outset, I feel like a support act which has arrived after the main event. You have to love the member for Fong Lim, and if you do not, he is still entertaining.
This is a cultural change we are looking at, and I do not believe there would be many people who would disagree with what is trying to be achieved. I do worry about a few issues. First, you have a group of children who do not engage in schooling, and they do not engage in the community. In many cases, there are children who slip through the net, and I will start with urban children.
I have a story about a 15-year-old boy who made it all the way to Year 9, only to be told his abilities were about Year 5, and his parents were led to believe everything was fine; he was doing well. He was not an A-grade student, but he was not below average, and every indication in reports sent home from school, in every teacher-parent interview, indicated this young boy was doing okay. He was an average kid. Yet, he reaches Year 9 only to be told he has the ability of a Year 5 student. His parents have employed a tutor to help. We are talking about a child with what are considered decent parents, who have gone out of their way to get a tutor to help this child.
What about our remote children? How many of those slip through the net? How many of those do we think are doing okay, but are not? These are some of the kids who need our major attention.
We are talking about urban and remote areas. What about the others? How do you engage these children? How does this legislation engage children who may not want to be at school and are in the age group where their expectations far outweigh their abilities? They are not old enough to vote, they sit in a void where they think they are adults, and can get away with things, and we, in the community, know they do things they perhaps should not. If they were further engaged they may not get into some of the problems.
These are the children we want to capture and keep at school or provide other options. I worry about the consequences of children who stay in schools when they do not want to. I know the Country Liberals have talked about a school of last resort, and I can see where that would fit well into this legislation. If students had no other intention but to turn up to school because they had to, not because they wanted to and not because they felt they were going to benefit in any way, so their aim is to cause trouble at school, you are creating a very difficult situation for teachers, principals, and school councils. These people deal with some of the issues because they have parents come to speak to them directly regarding antisocial behaviour, which even happens in primary schools.
You are putting work and responsibility onto teachers and principals, and I do not see anything in this legislation to back it up. I do not see anything to provide a strategy to deal with some of these issues. What if you have a kid who is a little bugger? We have many out there. They are the ones who cause problems in our schools. They are the kids who think they are above the rest; do not have a care about society, and think their stuff does not smell. These are the kids you are going to be left with because of this legislation, unless you have strategies to deal with them.
The school of last resort could deal with some of this. I do not believe anyone would agree, this is a bad piece of legislation, when it comes to the intent. But, it has to be backed up with effective strategies to enable the department of Education, principals, and school teachers to deal with this particular age group, which parents often find difficult at times. You can have very good parents and you have this adolescent age group, who present problems to parents and schools.
There are two options. I have said this legislation has no consequences for children who want to be disruptive continually. The second option is to look for employment, and I recall the Australian Technical College, the member for Fong Lim mentioned. My understanding is the program was very expensive but had 100% outcomes. Once the benchmark had been set, imagine if every school had every child who entered leaving the school passing the benchmark; 100%. Imagine a primary school where 100% of the students pass above average. After spending millions of dollars in schools around the country, the Australian Technical Colleges have been disbanded, on political grounds; it was not a federal Labor idea, therefore it is no good. One hundred percent; not a bad outcome.
We have truancy problems in many of our schools and I do not believe we have effective measures to deal with it. How will this legislation affect truancy? We cannot deal with the truants we have; come to Palmerston shopping centre. On many occasions I have seen the Leader of the Opposition speaking to young children in school uniforms. Perhaps we should follow Alice Springs, where there is a no-service policy for schoolchildren. Perhaps we need to deal with truancy in a more effective way. There are students who have been sent to the shopping centre by their parents. Perhaps we need to introduce passes from school which could be shown to receive service, then returned when the student returns. The student can be recorded as returning to school.
These are practical ideas which can deal with truants, however, we need truancy officers if we are going to add another group of people, a change in culture, and a different level of adolescents. We are not talking about kids who want to stay in school, further their education, and go on to university, this is a group of people, in some cases, who have no intention of doing anything else. They feel the world owes them a living, and they have rights but no responsibilities. These are some of the people you are going to be left to deal with. Without proper strategies in place, the government is introducing what could be a nightmare to manage.
I hope this is not another symbolic piece of legislation. It is not a feel-good policy, the average mum and dad think is pretty good. Behind their thoughts is that this is going to get many off the street and back into education, which we know, if managed correctly, could lead to better outcomes for them and the community.
What I have seen today is rushed legislation, however, I thoroughly believe in the intent. I worry it is rushed legislation, put out to look good, without strategies or resources to back it up. I would love to make this work, and I believe together we could make this work, however it needs to be fixed, and it needs strategies to back up what could be good legislation.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this bill on, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for putting forward some amendments to the bill.
I listened intently to the member for Nelson, and I listened intently to what you had to say. I was quite surprised to hear your comments about your seat of Nhulunbuy, and the issues concerning welfare and employment. I have not heard you speak on this before, and it made me interested in discussing this bill. I believe it is a great idea to get kids aged 15 to 17, who are not at school and are not working or learning, to participate is some way, shape or form in the economy.
In the second reading speech, the Chief Minister mentioned this is part of COAG. I am not sure of the reason, it may be one of Kevin Rudd’s ‘earn or learn’ strategies, and I am uncertain of what is forcing the Northern Territory government to take action. I am sure there would be financial commitments or a financial trade-off to this because, quite frankly, the Northern Territory government would not have done this without Kevin Rudd stepping in and ordering it to be done.
I wonder how many people will be targeted through this initiative. We are not talking about people in the bush; we are talking about people in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs. I wonder how many people in these towns, where there are high levels of employment and a large labour force participation, people studying at CDU or elsewhere - who are we trying to target? I reflected on this, and I believe it is quite fanciful for this to come before the House; I believe it is fanciful for the Northern Territory government to think they can make some difference.
I understand COAG made the Northern Territory government act, much in the same way John Howard and Mal Brough made the Northern Territory government either step aside or take action on child abuse. Look at the Northern Territory government’s performance in education. It wants to keep 15- to 17-year-olds in an earning or learning environment, however, I listened to the member for Brennan asking how you can do that when you have kids running around the streets. How can you keep 15- to 17-year-olds earning or learning in an environment when you cannot get kids off the street or get them through primary school? I do not understand how the Northern Territory government can beat its chest about how it is going to promote an earning and learning culture and environment when it cannot keep things in order. The Education Act says if you do not send your child to school you will be prosecuted. There have been no prosecutions in the last eight years of this government - not one - so it is not taking action on kids who do not go to school, or parents who do not send them to school.
Last week, I spent time with delegates from African countries and I asked them what happens if they did not send their kids to school. Their response was: ‘All our kids want to go to school.’ I said: ‘What happens if a family does not want to send their kids to school?’ They said: ‘We take them to court and we fine them; and if the parents do not pay, they are in gaol for one day.’
I do not want to send parents to gaol, but we have to change the culture to encourage primary school kids to attend school. We are not doing that. We have parents doing the right thing. Some of those 15- to 17-year-olds might fall off the wagon and this legislation seeks to adjust that. However, what about the kids who do not go? We have kids running around the streets of Alice Springs at 2 am, and this government will not support a youth curfew policy. They will not put in force initiatives for change in this area. Perhaps we need Kevin Rudd talking about sending primary school kids to school, because it is not happening.
Are federal government grants tied to enrolments? Is this why the government wants to keep 15- to 17-year-olds at school? Does it want to see more funding come to the Territory by enrolling children in school? Do not worry if they do not come, we will enrol them to get money for the government. The Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion about family responsibilities and truancy officers to work with families to encourage attendance is what we should be doing as a government initiative, not legislation forced upon us by COAG.
We have trial sites in six communities across the Territory - Hermannsburg and Wadeye, to name two - however tying student participation to welfare payments is making no difference in those communities. People in Hermannsburg are sending their kids to school; I believe there is 95% attendance. Those parents are sending their kids to school based on measures put in place under the intervention. However, these trial sites, where welfare payments are tied to school attendance, do nothing. It takes three years of a spaghetti incident before someone will have their welfare payments quarantined to ensure children are sent to school. This is where we need a hard and fast rule: if you do not send a child to school you will be prosecuted. It is in the act, but the government will not take action, because it is soft on crime and soft on action. That is what it is all about.
The government wants to see kids in the bush get their Year 10 certificate. Every time someone from the bush gets their Year 12 certificate what is the first thing the government does? The minister walks them through the media: ‘We have another black one who has graduated from Year 12’. That is what it is portraying. Yet, when that person attempts to get a job or goes to Centrelink, they cannot fill out a form because they cannot read or write. The government talks about 27 years of CLP rule and not getting kids through Year 12, but students finishing in those 27 years were smarter, more articulate and financially literate, than the people who are coming out of the education system under this hopeless government.
Mr HENDERSON: How would you know? You were not here.
Mr GILES: The Chief Minister says: ‘You were not here’. It is his failures which are causing the problems in the Northern Territory. It is his Labor ethos, the philosophical approach of this government, which is not getting kids to school to get an education so they can get a job.
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling, could you pause please. Member for Greatorex, cease interjecting, please. You have the call, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr GILES: I have spoken in the Chamber about the need for boarding schools. It is lovely to see Rosie, from the Utopia region. I have spoken to her, on many occasions, about how I would love to see boarding facilities in the Utopia region – Arlparra or somewhere else. She is a born and bred Territorian. The region is diverse and widespread, and there are opportunities for boarding facilities for primary, secondary and VET education, with the potential for preschool, which would provide a safe place for kids to get an education during the week and go home on weekends. It would provide respite for young students, and for parents during the week, and an opportunity to improve educational standards.
I commend the new school at Arlparra, where I visited recently and spoke to students. There is an opportunity for a boarding school because not all children in that area can get to school. We need a bus service, but I will come to that. What happened in between the time I was elected last year and the federal budget this year? The federal government said it would build three boarding schools and has looked at four locations. One location will miss out, which means the kids miss out on an education.
I believe the biggest national disgrace is there are no secondary education facilities in the bush. I know you cannot build a high school everywhere; I am in touch with financing and how it works. We stand here with some flippant bill, Uncle Kevin told us we had to have as part of COAG reform, which is not changing education in the Northern Territory. It is a disgrace. The only person to make a difference in the Territory in the last eight years has been Mal Brough. He saw child abuse as a problem and took action. Whether you like the approach he took or not, he made it an issue, and this should be an issue. Education should be an issue for sure. If you cannot put a school in a bush community, how is someone going to learn?
Over the last two weeks I have spent time with people from Commonwealth countries and the European Union, and have learnt about the role the Commonwealth plays in African nations, the role China plays in African nations, and the role the European Union is playing in African nations and South-East Asian nations. I stood at the commission last week and said: ‘Would you like a job in Australia, would you like to come to the Territory?’ My federal colleague said: ‘What are you doing asking the European Union to come to Australia?’ I said: ‘Federal and Territory governments have had it wrong for years and years’.
There is no sense of urgency about housing with the member for nothing-in-Daly. There is no sense of urgency about education. Children are still not going to school; they do not have access to a school. We see media releases come out from this Labor government saying: we are doing great things, when many things it announces are funded by the federal government. It talks about big infrastructure budgets; but it is all federal government money, which it will not spend. The statement it will release later today is about school funding, I believe the contract was signed on 20 November; the government will sign it and make a statement in Alice Springs while parliament is sitting.
I mentioned buses, when I spoke about the Utopia region, and I mean throughout the Territory; buses so kids can get to Yeperenye School from local outstations. I would like to see a boarding school at Yeperenye so kids can stay during the week. Each time I have called for it, I get on ABC radio, and there is some pressure, what happens? The good people on the Aboriginal Benefits Account allocate money for a bus. There are now buses in the Katherine region, at Barunga, Beswick and Bulman. There is now a bus for Yeperenye, but there is no money to service the bus, which comes from education funds. The kids are missing out because money has to be spent on the bus. The education standard is not really improving. The student might make it to school if the bus has been repaired properly, but then there is not enough to pay the teachers.
The Commonwealth Grants Commission is a body, set up under the Howard government, which assesses need in state and territory jurisdictions. I recently looked at the line items. The Commission divides the GST money through a formula called the horizontal fiscal equalisation and, in dividing the money up, it looks at the Northern Territory for cost of delivering service, remoteness, disadvantage, and need. It provides dollars to the Northern Territory government on a ratio of 5-to-1; all things being equal at 1, the Northern Territory gets 5. I went through the report released this year, over assessed funding and provided funding, over the five financial years to 2007-08. I have those five reports, which I have condensed into a readable graph
I will talk about the line item in the Commonwealth Grants Commission called Transport of Rural Schoolchildren. In 2007-08, $14.7m needed to be spent - that is table 64 - in transporting rural children to school; that was its assessment. It makes different assessments; the years before it thought it was $13.968m, $13.357m; $12.666m; and $13.141m, respectively. It assessed, from the GST money it gave the Northern Territory government, about $6.6m would go towards this line item of transporting rural children to school. In other words, the Northern Territory government had $8.1m it could utilise to transport rural children to school.
There is a budget of $14.7m on the assessment made by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and the Northern Territory government spent $1m on transporting rural children to school - $14.7m to transport rural children to school and it spent $1m. This is a whopping 7% of its budget; 7%. We have ABA money from mining royalties providing a bus. The Northern Territory government, the Chief Minister with his head down over there, will not do anything about it. However, he comes in with an education package forced on him by Uncle Kevin and attempts to make some difference. It is not going to make any difference in the bush.
Where do we go from here? In the 2007-08 financial year it spent 7% of its budget; $1m of a $14.7m budget. The year before, it spent 7%; the year before that it did much better, spending 15% of its budget. It was on a winner in 2005-06 when it spent 15% of its budget, however, it has cut it in half and is down to 7% of the money it should be spending transporting rural kids to school. It beggars belief that they are so dispassionate towards the bush, and we know this government lives off the bush vote.
You will not hear bush members talk about how to fix education in the bush; you will not hear Uncle Kevin in Canberra saying: ‘Let us make Indigenous education in the Northern Territory an issue’. You will not hear them saying: ‘This is the biggest concern; it is the biggest national disgrace we have’. He can say sorry over here, but he cannot send a child to school over there. The real issues are the left brow-beating and the right trying to solve the problems. We have the Country Liberals trying to make a difference; and the left is sitting on its hands, whingeing and moaning and not spending money, pork-barrelling the people in the northern suburbs to stay in government, but not sending children to school in the bush. It is an absolute disgrace.
I digress; let me come back from that digression. $79.294m was spent in the 2007-08 financial year on recreation - $79m on recreation - and $1m on getting rural children to school. We can build a waterfront, we can subsidise a wave pool, but we cannot send a rural child to school. What sort of government is this? A government with no heart, no compassion; absolutely no compassion. How many children from the bush are going to graduate this year from Year 12? ‘Good on you, mate. Can you get a job?’ ‘No’. ‘Why?’ ‘Because I cannot read and write’. ‘Well, go to Centrelink’. ‘Oh, hang on. I cannot fill out the Centrelink form. Can you help me?’ ‘Go to Job Network. They will help you’. ‘But I cannot fill out the Job Network application form’.
These are the people we are graduating, and the government should hang its head in shame. Where is the member for Arnhem? Every time an Aboriginal issue comes up she is there. Where is she now? Is she going to talk about this crisis? Is she going to ring Uncle Kevin? Is she going to ring Julia Gillard, the Education minister, and say: ‘We have a problem. We need 20 boarding schools in the Northern Territory. Someone help. Quick’. Who was fighting for the people at Yulara when the boarding school was closing? The federal government gave it a meagre $1.5m: ‘Here you go, kids’. Where is the person who said Yulara should be a growth town? Who said: ‘Yulara should be a growth town for cross-border servicing the AP lands in Western Australia and out to Warburton?’ A hospital could go there; the school which could be turned into a real boarding school to service all those kids there. No, they let it shut down. How many times has it shut, member for Macdonnell, five or six times?
The federal Liberal Party are as much to blame as this government. But, not as much to blame as the member for Lingiari, the man who has sat in his seat for 22 years and done nothing - brought Fourth World conditions into a First World country and it is time for the European Union to save the poor blackfellow out bush. That is what is needed.
At a time when we see old Patrick – I cannot remember his last name – from Kiwirrkurra in Western Australia, who was trying to utilise the dialysis services in Alice Springs, trying to use, what I thought was a great term, nocturnal dialysis. He could receive services here because it is much easier. No, he has to fly to Alice Springs, Perth, and then to Kalgoorlie, to get dialysis services, and then fly back, when he lives at Kiwirrkurra. That is a great result for the government expenditure; great working of government money.
It was quite interesting to listen to the Indigenous Health Minister, who happens to be the member for Lingiari, on the ABC, when Alice Brennan asked him why he cannot do anything about it, he said: ‘I cannot do it; I need to get someone else to do it.’ I am paraphrasing, but he said: ‘I cannot fix it. What are you asking me these hard questions for? I cannot fix it’. ‘But, you are the Minister for Indigenous Health - you are the minister.’ He got quite shirty. It was quite interesting.
I raise the question again: why was Yulara not considered a growth town? It could have serviced the whole cross-border region. I will tell you why: there are no votes in South Australia or Western Australia for the Northern Territory government.
I respond to this bill, in light of the newspaper article, written two weeks ago by Nicholas Rothwell in The Australian, where he said the Northern Territory is a failed state. How can you disagree when you have kids out bush with no school to go to, a government which will not prosecute a parent for failing to send a child to school, and you cannot get a house built? Go to Irrultja, where you can live in a humpy but you cannot get a house, where you can get a power meter. Members on my side, this is what is happening, at Irrultja, near Ampilatwatja; people are living in humpies. They were running extensions cords to their humpy for light. What did the Northern Territory government do? The Northern Territory government which, in 2007-08, spent $115.5m on gas and electricity, decided to install power meters; it needed to charge for power to the humpy. You cannot have a house, but you get a power meter. What sort of compassionate government is this?
This is the most insane thing I have seen. When we walk away from here tonight, the government members will sleep in a hotel. They will have a beer, they will rest, they will say: ‘Gee, Giles was cranky today. Giles is going off his tree’. But nothing will change. The one thing which will make something happen is proper representation in the Northern Territory; getting rid of the Labor government, and getting the United Nations involved to let them see exactly what is happening. I am not a big fan of the leftie organisation. However, we need international recognition of the despicable services in the Northern Territory. People shake their head and have a laugh, however, go and live in these conditions in people’s country this is their country.
The member for Nhulunbuy was talking about jobs and welfare. She has seen the light. Welfare is not the saviour. I wonder how many jobs the ex-teacher from Nhulunbuy created for people who graduated from her school? What has this government done for economic development in the last eight years? What job has it created? What jobs? Yes, there are jobs at Tanami mines. Yes, thanks very much to the federal government and the CLC. What has the Territory government done? Swing on its shirt-tails. What has it done for economic development? Pump a little welfare in. The African countries say: ‘Trade not aid’. This government cannot provide aid anyway; trade not aid; jobs not welfare. That is what it is about. There is no strategy. In 2030 we might have something; we have nothing now. This government knows that, because it is not going to be around then, because it is a dead duck in the water.
How can any government justify spending $1m to transport rural children to school out of a $14.7m budget - 7% of the budget? How can you hold your head up high? I know its response; it will be running to the media now: ‘He has his figures wrong’. The government told the Commonwealth Grant Commission it spent $1m; it was its figures. That is not wrong; it came from the Northern Territory government. It will be saying: ‘He does not understand his figures’. Well, I do. I have had them checked quite carefully over the last six weeks to make sure I have it right. They will be saying: ‘Giles is on another rant. He has no idea. Education is all cool. We have all these kids going to school’. They are enrolled, but they do not go because you cannot get them there. But, they are all enrolled.
Nothing is changing, so I believe this bill is an absolute crock. I want to see 15- to 17-year-olds who live in a working family earn or learn. We can have funny phrases in trying to support the federal government to carry on with its chest beating. Yes, we do not want kids on welfare, we do not want them on Newstart. We want them working, we want them training, we want them earning. However, what do we do about the other 95% who have nothing? What do we do?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move the member for Braitling be given a further 10 minutes to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77. He is doing a fantastic job.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: I thank the honourable member for Fong Lim. He recognises a good speech when he sees one. He wants more of the same. I was about to sit down, but thank you very much.
Let me go back to the Commonwealth Grants Commission report, and let me ask, if you had $14.7m as an assessment, and you only spent $1m on people who are probably the neediest, where did the money go? That is a pretty fair question. I am sure the shadow Treasurer would be asking the same question, where did that $13.7m go? It spent $79m on culture and recreation, building wave pools for kids, but it gets better; that was only a $32m overspend. Let us go back to 2006-07, where it spent $94m on recreation - it must have needed to put more into the wave pool; that was a $50m overspend.
Why do we not go back further? In 2005-06, when we still did not send kids to school, it spent $110.657m on culture and recreation. I wonder how much money came from the selling of those 1000 public housing stocks. That was a $69.6m overspend on what the Commonwealth Grants Commission assessed. I can tell you, on non-urban roads in 2005-06, the Territory government - the hapless, arrogant, tired and limp Territory government - spent $2.9m, or let us call it $3m, on non-urban roads, presumably out in the Utopia region, that would be part of a non-urban road. However, guess what it spent $110m on? It was not on a wave pool at Utopia; I am pretty sure it was on a wave pool in Darwin. The figures get worse and worse.
I am calling on the Northern Territory government to act on education. I am calling on the Northern Territory government to recognise education is a problem. I am calling on it to recognise that kids in the bush need secondary and VET education. I would love to see a boarding school with VET education at Utopia. I have spoken many times about it. I am calling on the Northern Territory government to take action, not to say: ‘what a load of rubbish’, because it is not rubbish.
I am calling on the federal government: Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and everyone else, including Liberals and Nationals, to say this is a national disgrace. If nothing is done by Christmas, I will be going international to make something happen. If you do not think I have the capacity to do it, you are wrong. I will get an international audience, and I will get something happening.
I am the member for an urban seat, however I understand how bush issues affect my town electorate. I understand how my electorate affects the Northern Territory, Darwin and wider Australia. I have a responsibility for everyone; not only the people who vote for me. I do not have my snout in the trough in Wanguri, Casuarina or Karama, or anywhere in the northern suburbs; I am trying to make a difference for everyone. I am not here for a good time or a long time; I am here to make a difference - I am passionate about making a difference. I am absolutely horrified this government is here and does not care.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I will talk on the Education Amendment (Youth Participation) Bill, and I support the Country Liberals in its amendments. I want to talk briefly on how a family has a huge impact on children going to school. If you do not have an agreement between families and communities, then the children are left in isolation and do not go to school. I want to talk from a cultural point of view because I believe this bill, and many bills before it, and this amendment, do not take into consideration the cultural ramifications of Indigenous children in communities, and I would like to talk about that point.
When our young children go through Aboriginal law, at ages 10, 11 and 12, they are classified as an adult and a man, therefore making it their decision whether they will go to school or not. I cannot see anything in this bill that embraces this culture, which is so much part of the Northern Territory. It is so much part of the Northern Territory and has not been considered at all. As we know, when our young men go through law, the families no longer have any kind of responsibility or authority over them. How do we get these children to Year 10, and how do we get them to stay at school? We are flat out, under the current legislation, getting Indigenous kids to go to school. When there are failures in literacy and numeracy we amend the current legislation because we are not thinking outside the square. We are not considering Indigenous culture, which is not only in Central Australia, but throughout the Northern Territory, up to the Top End. How do we include these children? How do we include this other culture which has a totally different rule to the amendments put forward in this bill?
Have we spoken about an education strategy prior to this bill? Have we provided information to these communities saying the Northern Territory government will make amendments which will include youth participation, where we will encourage children to stay at school until the age of 17 or Year 10, and after Year 10 you have to find employment or training to occupy your mind until 17-years of age? There has been nothing; absolutely nothing. I found the same message in the amendments to child protection. I see now, by talking to people in the communities, there are no education strategies.
It is very important, Chief Minister, we provide educational material to Indigenous communities to say this is the new law of the Northern Territory, this is what we want Indigenous people to do and there must be engagement with Indigenous parents and Indigenous communities throughout the Northern Territory to ensure they are aware of this legislation. They need to be ready to send their kids to school, every day, five days a week, so people next year are not saying: ‘We did not know you were changing the law’.
When 32% of the Northern Territory population is Indigenous, we will look very silly if they have been left out of any form of consultation when, in the socioeconomic indicators, they are the poorest, not only in education, but also in health and housing.
I congratulate the member for Braitling for his compassionate comments today. Yeperenye school bus has been on the agenda of the Northern Territory government for many years, yet ABA has had to purchase a bus. There is no money for ongoing repairs and maintenance; however those children still have to be taken to school. These are precious children of the Territory we are talking about. I have always said in this House: there is not a black way, there is not a white way, there is the right way to do things. I believe Indigenous people have been made to pay more and more from their royalties for things the government is responsible for. Picking up schoolchildren is not the responsibility of ABA; it is the responsibility of the government. That was a decision of the federal minister.
Child protection, substance abuse, education, health and housing are real issues which have an impact on the day-to-day lives of Indigenous people, and all Territorians. You never hear a true Territorian, someone born and bred in this country, tell people they cannot have their say because they are not a real Territorian - you never hear that. As politicians, regardless of whether we have lived here for two years, seven years, 50 years, or 100 years, we are all part of building this magnificent place we call the Territory. It is so diverse now, we have 36% Indigenous people, Greeks, Italians, Chinese and other nationalities, and I believe we have to stop ridiculing each other based on whether we have been here for one year or 100 years. We are all passionate about the issues we raise in parliament, and it is really important we put in our best effort for the people of the Territory.
I want to talk about how important the opposition’s amendments are, because unless you have the engagement of the community and the parents, you will always have children not really understanding how to move forward. The parents are such a key factor in this, and we know education is the key factor in a person’s life; unless we have education we cannot move on in this world, and we have to give the opportunity to Indigenous children in the Northern Territory to have the same things we have had, the same things we give to our children. All 25 members, who sit in this House and have children or grandchildren, will want the best for them. Why is it we do not do 100% for Indigenous kids in remote Aboriginal communities? Why is it we do not have proper buses picking up schoolchildren? Why is it, when literacy and numeracy results are so poor in remote schools, all we can do is amend the legislation to say we will do it a different way?
This is so appalling, we should be utterly ashamed to stand here and call ourselves mums and dads when, as responsible politicians, 36% of the Territory’s population is failing in education, health, houses have not built in two years, poor housing, overcrowded housing, and we expect these children to finish Year 10 and find employment and training when they are 17. Where are the jobs for these people in communities?
Let me go back to their mums and dads, because the legislation of this government fails not only the children, but also their mums and dads. The teacher’s assistants on communities have a certificate but cannot teach outside remote schools; you have imprisoned those teacher assistants for the rest of their lives in remote Aboriginal schools.
Why can those teacher aides not work in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, or even Brisbane and Cairns - wherever they want? We have imprisoned them forever to live in remote Aboriginal communities.
It is the same with ACPOs. You have doomed these people to lowly positions. Health workers are exactly the same – 25 years. When are they going to become nurses and doctors or real nurses in their community? My sister-in-law has been a teacher’s aide for the last 18 years at Papunya School, and she will forever, until she dies, remain a teacher’s aide at the Papunya School. My auntie retired as an Aboriginal Health Worker after 25 years. She retired because she could not move out of the community. My sister-in-law tried to live in Alice Springs earlier this year, but she could not get a job, not even with the certificate she received from Batchelor College. We have imprisoned Aboriginal people; forever doomed to live in their communities.
We have doomed their children, with poor literacy and numeracy, poor education, never to leave their communities but to live in squalor, with substance abuse, not just petrol sniffing but ganja and alcohol forever. The land mass we have, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, is to die on; all we have the land mass for is to die on. The only thing getting larger in remote Aboriginal communities is graves; the cemeteries. Go out to every community, whether it be my electorate, the electorate of Stuart or Barkly, and you will see people are probably starting their third or fourth cemetery; that is all we have done.
We need a vision; we need to ensure we move Territorians forward equally, fairly and justly as human beings. We have to start thinking outside the square. Sometimes, in this House, there is ridicule between either side and people say: ‘Oh, you are ex-coppers’, referring to members on this side, ‘you worked in the Northern Territory Police Force’. However, you also have ex-teachers on your side. I would like to see if these ex-teachers had any Indigenous person, from schools where they taught, graduate from Year 12. We have to stop bragging about the 35 kids we have graduate from Year 12 - whether it be 35 or 65. Four weeks ago, I received a letter from a girl who graduated from Year 12 at an island school, and went to Darwin to get a job. She cannot read and write with her Year 12 certificate. It is an absolute shambles. We should be absolutely ashamed of ourselves. We are giving out certificates because we want statistics so we can say in parliament that 75 young kids have graduated from community schools. But, they cannot read and write. It is absolutely shameful that we have sent these kids backwards.
I will table this letter at tomorrow’s sittings and you will see where she went to school. She graduated and received her Year 12 certificate. Chief Minister, because you are the minister for Education, I hope you take her off the statistics you continuously place in parliament - whether it be in Darwin or Alice Springs. It is an absolute shambles we use these kids as pawns - as numbers - to stand up and boast.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for contributing to the debate. There is something which unites everyone in this House: to improve the quality of education throughout the Northern Territory. It is right we have a passionate debate about these issues, because they are very important issues.
The legislation we have before us is borne of a national agreement formed at COAG to have uniform laws across the Northern Territory in participation at school, in training, or employment, and to have those laws underpinned and supported by the Australian government social security system, and consequential changes arising from it. It is part of the broader COAG Reform Agenda looking to harmonise legislation across the Territory.
I pick up on some of the fairly irrational comments from the member for Braitling. The Territory government was not dragged kicking and screaming to this position. This agreement was worked through thoroughly at COAG, and long overdue in the Northern Territory: to lift the school leaving age from the age of 15 to the completion of at least Year 10, or participation of 25 hours a week in either employment or training, until the age of 17. We went into this with absolute agreement from the beginning.
I will go through some of the comments from individual members and set the record straight on a few things. I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to get to his amendments, so I can deal with those at that time. I am in full agreement with what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do regarding holding parents accountable for their children’s attendance.
I have the benefit of very thorough and informed departmental and legal advice regarding the construct of your amendments; we are not a million miles apart. We received the amendments at 5.05 pm Friday. With all the insanity which goes around preparing for sittings, I am not in a position to accept the amendments as you propose today, however I am prepared to enter into an ongoing dialogue with yourself to achieve what we all want, which is better parental accountability.
I say that up-front, and I will explain the opposition to your amendments, as they are proposed, when we get to the committee stage. One of the things you said is about not giving up, and we should not give up on any student reaching their potential.
The member for Nhulunbuy made a very informed and passionate contribution as an ex-teacher. I was quite taken aback by the constituent issue; someone has come to Nhulunbuy from Western Australia and is aghast children could leave school at the age of 15. I put myself in your shoes, member for Nhulunbuy, it must have been hard to explain to a very anxious parent that these changes are coming in but they are not going to pick up that child. Fifteen is too young for our children to leave school in today’s very complex world.
The member for Nelson made some very salient points. He asked what difference this would make, is it education for education’s sake? Certainly not. The impact of these changes will be different in our capital city, as opposed to some of our regional and remote centres. It is not a one size fits all approach, and I do believe it will make a difference. We have to create more employment in remote communities. Now is not the time for that debate, however my colleague, the minister for Indigenous Policy, has just released an Indigenous Economic Development Strategy which has job creation targets, and a large part of A Working Future is about creating jobs in these communities.
I want to be specific about one agreement, and the way forward, as a government, which is the formal memorandum of understanding, an agreement we have with ERA at Jabiru, where ERA are committing to provide jobs to students at Jabiru High School and Gunbalanya if they reach appropriate academic standards. We need to have more of these agreements in place across the Territory – companies committing to providing jobs to people in those regions; this is a start, you will see more. The member for Nelson talked about a commonsense approach to deal with issues in remote communities; I cannot agree with him more.
He raised issues about transparency around the increase in attendance. I advise the member for Nelson, on the department of Education’s website, we publish, on a regular basis, attendance levels for schools. The My School website, which will be launched this year, will also have attendance information and we will track attendance increases as a result of this legislation. He talked about wishing INPEX could be at Port Keats. There are many reasons that did not happen, however I congratulate INPEX.
I was in Japan with Koolpinyah Barnes and Greg Constantine from the Larrakia Development Corporation, and INPEX has signed a memorandum of agreement with the Larrakia, to specifically provide training and employment, not only to Larrakia, but other Indigenous people throughout the Northern Territory who want to work on the construction of the project and ongoing. I congratulate Koolpinyah and the Larrakia and INPEX on entering a fantastic agreement.
I am not going to go through the ravings of the member for Fong Lim, but the claim the Territory government did not support the Australian Technical College in Darwin is factually wrong. It was fully supported by the Territory government. The funding issues around the ATC were with the Commonwealth government; the buck should not be passed to the Territory, and the Australian government has agreed to fund those students in a different way. They have all been placed, and the Board of the Australian Technical College in Darwin was satisfied with the outcome. To make the assertion we did not support it is factually wrong, however most of what the member for Fong Lim says is factually wrong.
He mentioned there was no funding attached to this bill. This shows he does not understand the process of legislation and how this works. This is a bill to amend the Education Act to support the retention of students to Year 10, and to be either earning or learning until the age of 17. It is not a budget bill, and there is significant budget support for this legislation through the National Partnership Agreements. He may want to read through those.
I appreciate the passion and emotion the member for Braitling brings to the debate. What I do not appreciate is the histrionics, and the assertions this government does not care. It is offensive; I can cop that. He has his eyes closed to the enormous amount of work being undertaken in the bush. Is it all perfect? Obviously not. Do we have a magic wand to turn this situation into Nirvana overnight? No, we do not. Are we acting with a sense of urgency? Yes, we are. I can see improvements all the time around the Territory, but things are not going to be fixed overnight.
I point out to the member for Braitling, in all his vile and vitriol towards not only our government, but also the Commonwealth government, there are hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure going into rebuilding and upgrading schools across the Northern Territory, remote schools in particular, the likes of which the Territory has never seen before.
The amount of money going into new schools, upgrading schools, remote schools, isolated schools right across the Northern Territory, and the level of commitment, either from the Australian government or the Territory government, has never been seen in the past. It runs to hundreds of millions of dollars, and will better support teachers and students in those schools. In the last few weeks, I had the pleasure of visiting the new middle school at Arlparra, which is as good as any school in Darwin, with Internet access, smart boards, a science lab and home economics rooms. One old fellow, a traditional owner, touched me deeply, when he had a tear in his eye, because the quality of the school was so good. We have just upgraded and opened the primary and senior school at Borroloola. The member for Nhulunbuy talked about the new school we are building at Yilpara, and upgrades across the Territory.
I acknowledge the member for Braitling is passionate about these things, however, to not acknowledge the hundreds of millions of dollars being invested is somewhat churlish. He is offensive to teachers who work in these remote schools. Our teachers do a magnificent job, and the vitriol regarding the quality of education being delivered is offensive to teachers.
He raved about several things, and talked about dialysis. I remind the member for Braitling, under the previous CLP government it was policy to provide dialysis only in Darwin and Alice Springs; it is our government which has been expanding dialysis services through the Northern Territory. I also point out to the member for Braitling, the CLP went to the last election under the Indigenous policy commitment, and there was not one single funded commitment to Indigenous policy apart from forming a committee; that was the only policy it had at the last election.
I urge the member for Braitling, if he has any support in his party room, when we next contest an election in the Northern Territory, we see funded commitments from the CLP regarding infrastructure and expansion of services in the bush, because we did not see them at the last election. The histrionics of the member for Braitling, and the numbers he misconstrues and throws around, he can do that, and it is good theatre and plays to the audience, he might get a few grabs on the ABC News, but the proof of the pudding – how serious the CLP is about these issues - will be at the next election.
If there are no expressed funding commitments, and significant funding commitments, it is nothing more than histrionics. I acknowledge the good intentions of the member for Braitling, however he is one of a group and he did not have the support at the last election to get his ideas committed to and funded as CLP policy, and to receive endorsement by the people of the Territory. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on education in the bush, and he did not have the good grace to acknowledge that.
The member for Macdonnell made some salient points and I will be going back to the department to ensure we promote these changes in remote Indigenous communities. It is absolutely vital we do so, and I can say to the member for Macdonnell …
Madam SPEAKER: Just make sure Mr Gadd is okay there.
Mr HENDERSON: Gaddy, are you okay? Pleased to see you are. Someone get him a glass of water. Thank you, Madam Speaker; it is good to see Mr Gadd is okay.
The member for Macdonnell asked if these changes been promoted through the system, and had there been any consultation. Yes, there has. I released, along with the CE of the department, a new five-year strategic plan for education about three or four months ago; we released it not only in Darwin, it was part of a videoconferencing event where schools and teachers from throughout the Northern Territory attended the launch of the strategic plan, and all schools have been fully engaged.
In regard to upgrading teachers’ aides, I agree, there is a significant push to upgrade teacher’s aides. I also agree, that at Batchelor College - and there are big reforms occurring at Batchelor - we need to improve the quality of teacher’s aides in our remote schools, and I agree with the aspiration: if you are a teacher’s aide at Ngukurr, Papunya or Ntaria you should be able to teach not only in those communities, but also in Darwin. We are on track there; changes need to be made. I point out to the member for Macdonnell, there is a formal transition pathway for our ACPOs to become fully-sworn police officers, and many of them are taking the opportunity.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. I will deal with the Leader of the Opposition’s amendments, and the reasons the government is not supporting those amendments, in the committee stage of the bill, however, Leader of the Opposition, we support your intent. There is good reason to acknowledge what you are attempting, but there is a practical reality and, in one case, a policy issue, which we cannot support you on. I thank members for their contributions to date. It is a significant reform to our education system.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move consideration of the Education Amendment (Youth Participation) Bill be made an order of the day for a later hour. This is after negotiations …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
A member: I cannot hear what he is saying.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, can you go to the Dispatch Box …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move consideration of the Education Amendment (Youth Participation) Bill in committee be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Motion agreed to; debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Standing Orders Committee Third Report to Eleventh Assembly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, this relates to the Standing Orders Committee report, which I have. As members would be aware, there was a motion by the parliament we should report back in the November sittings with this report. It is necessary for me to do that now to fulfil that obligation.
Madam Speaker, I table the Standing Orders Committee’s Third Report of the Eleventh Assembly, including a report to the Assembly on the reference to the committee dated 18 August 2009 - Questions, Time Limits, Processes and Estimates.
MOTION
Note Paper - Standing Orders Committee Third Report to Eleventh Assembly
Note Paper - Standing Orders Committee Third Report to Eleventh Assembly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move - that the Assembly take note of the paper and I have leave to continue my remarks on Thursday, 26 November 2009.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT (YOUTH PARTICIPATION) BILL
(Serial 59)
(Serial 59)
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: I note that it is 7.52 pm and we are due to adjourn at 8.30 pm. If the committee is not complete by 8.30 pm, it will go to Thursday. Thank you.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Education Amendment (Youth Participation) Bill 2009 (Serial 59) together with Schedule of Amendments No 29.1, circulated by the member for Blain, Mr Mills.
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New clause 5A:
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, at the outset, it is very important to get a clear idea of the plans in place to communicate and provide this information to students. Chief Minister, could you detail how you will ensure students, likely to turn 15 in 2010 and affected by these changes, are aware of the changes before the end of this year?
Mr HENDERSON: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. There will be a comprehensive communication plan, put in place by the department, through all affected schools before the end of this year, advising of the changes.
There has been significant communication through the Department of Education and Training’s five-year strategic plan which has already been released, and individual correspondence will go out to all parents whose children will be affected by this change when this bill passes and commences at the beginning of next year.
Mr MILLS: Information has already been provided to the affected parents?
Mr HENDERSON: Not until this legislation passes. But, as to the intent, all communication around the decision signed with COAG and the DET five-year strategic plan, has been passed to all schools and all affected students. Direct correspondence to parents will take place once this bill passes the House.
Mr MILLS: Madam Deputy Speaker, do I assume there will be information going to parents and students before the end of this school year?
Mr HENDERSON: Yes.
Mr MILLS: You are aware it is week eight, next week is week nine, and there is only one more week and it is the end of the year.
Mr HENDERSON: In anticipation of this bill passing, all the work has been done in DET, and that will be communicated to parents of affected students before the end of this year.
Mr MILLS: You indicate there is a comprehensive, detailed plan. I did ask for details, however, in the interests of time, we will not explore that at this stage. Could you detail the budget around the provision of this information to parents and students and the wider community? It is not just the kids, it is a very broad issue, and it will require a very sound communication strategy. What is the budget?
Mr HENDERSON: I will see if my CEO has that information, but it will be a comprehensive communication plan going to individual parents and students and more broadly. I will check to see if there is a specific budget on hand.
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, if I could check, are you planning to work through these amendments? Sorry, Chief Minister, I had a quick question to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: There are a number of questions in clauses 1 to 5.
Mr HENDERSON: There will be a comprehensive communication plan, working in partnership with the Australian government, before the end of the year because next year there will be sanctions, particularly in terms of Newstart and Youth Allowance, for students who are not participating in full-time training, and there are consequences. There is not only a communication plan at the Territory level, going to individual families, more broadly, there will be a national communication plan. We do not have a specific budget, however it will be funded from within DETs budget processes, as is normal.
Mr MILLS: As is normal. To use words such as comprehensive and detailed and so on, but we have no idea of the cost. Given the nature of the discussions in the second reading speech, I believe we all agree how significant this change is, however we do not have detail, we are rushing in the last few weeks of school, we are assured it is comprehensive in nature, however we have no detail of how much it is going to cost. Granted my amendments came to you late, but I believe that is of far lesser importance than the fact this appears to be quite late in the cycle.
Are you able to give an indication of the cost attached to this kind of communication strategy?
Mr HENDERSON: As I have said, it will be comprehensive. It will be targeted at parents and students affected by this, as well as those in our remote communities, within our schools, as well as letters home to parents, information in school newsletters, information by the Commonwealth regarding the consequential effects to not only the Youth Allowance but the Family Tax Benefits part A, there will be a comprehensive plan. Much of this communication will be done individually with parents and students and, more broadly, through the community.
I do not have a budget line item today, but I can say it will be comprehensive. It will be explicitly targeted at those parents and students, who this legislation is going to affect from the 2010 school year. Parents and students will be under no doubt about the obligation their child has to complete Year 10 and, once they have completed Year 10, to either participate fully in education until they reach the age of 17 years or engage in training or employment. It is going to be explicitly targeted. It will be done at a school level. The Commonwealth government will be making the implications of failing to stay at school, well known, through changes it will make to the Social Security regime around this, and also the Family Tax Benefit Part A package.
Mr MILLS: If I am to be satisfied it is comprehensive, it is explicit, it is going to reach parents, students, schools and the wider community, yet we do not have any idea of the cost attached to this comprehensive and explicit program, can you at least tell us whether the money to support this strategy is new money or is it within the existing budget?
Mr HENDERSON: The department does have existing budgets for marketing and communications, and the communication plan around these changes will come from that line item within the department’s budget.
Mr MILLS: We will move on. We have estimates to come, we will have to assess it at that stage and also measure the adjectives used to describe the strategy to come; whether it does live up to the expectation when we see it on our television screens and newspapers, and what schools communicate to parents in the last few weeks of the school year. Chief Minister, given it is a comprehensive communications plan, can you inform us how many of these publications and communiqus will be translated into Aboriginal languages?
Mr HENDERSON: This will be done, where applicable, at the local school level. Schools in remote areas will have a responsibility to communicate to their community and the parent cohort. Those changes will be communicated in language, where appropriate.
Mr MILLS: Chief Minister, will your letter also be translated?
Mr HENDERSON: Yes.
Mr MILLS: Given the aspirational nature of this endeavour, and the need for definition around the substantial nature of the plan so we can support it, a suggestion was made during the briefing to look at using social media to communicate this important message, to students in particular, because it is going to affect not only 15-year-olds; there are also 14-year-olds watching this. Can you advise the strategy surrounding the implementation of social media to communicate these important messages?
Mr HENDERSON: This is being developed through social media interfacing websites, blogs and texting. The whole gamut of opportunities to communicate to students, in the medium they prefer, is being worked on.
Mr MILLS: How important is it to get this message out before the end of the year? Does this message need to be delivered now, or do we have an extended period whereby we need to communicate this? Will it only be at the end of the year, or will it be continuing into the New Year, and how far?
Mr HENDERSON: The communication commenced with the release of DETs strategic plan, which we released 10 weeks ago. This was a comprehensive release and went to every parent and teacher in the Northern Territory. There has been an enormous amount of pubic debate about these changes and, once this legislation passes, there will be direct communication explicitly with parents and students who will be directly affected at the end of this year. There will an ongoing communication strategy leading into next year until people are very comfortable with the changes in the system.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Chief Minister. When did work commence on this project?
Mr HENDERSON: When COAG signed off on the reforms towards the end of October, work would have been happening within the department from that point. DETs strategic five-year plan highlights the changes which will be made, and that plan has been widely distributed to all parents and teachers across the Northern Territory. Communication of these changes, in anticipation of this legislation passing, has already been communicated to the parent body, the student body, and the teaching and principal organisations across the Territory.
Mr MILLS: Chief Minister, has the task of designing this communication strategy been done in-house, or was it a tender to an outside agency?
Mr HENDERSON: I advise it is all in-house.
Mr MILLS: Will the strategy involve television, radio, mail-outs?
Mr HENDERSON: It will be targeted and specific to parents and student cohorts who will be directly affected by this change. I am unaware what media the Australian government will use to communicate these changes, because they apply nationally. I would imagine, although I am not certain, the Australian government would be using electronic media to promote the changes and consequences to family tax payment benefits and Youth Allowance changes. Ours is targeted, explicit and cost-effective. Leader of the Opposition, I know you have been very critical of the government and some of our communication campaigns and, I am saying, this is targeted and explicit to students and parents who will be directly affected by these changes, until they become a normal part of our system.
Mr MILLS: There are two partners in this - the Territory government and the federal government. Can you describe the level of cooperation and coordination between the federal and the Territory government, and how those communication strategies are working together? What level of work has occurred to harmonise and coordinate those joint messages?
Mr HENDERSON: There are two parties communicating these changes. The department of Education is communicating changes directly to the students and parents who will be directly impacted by these changes which will commence at the beginning of 2010, and the student body and the pupil cohort which are part of those changes. They are explicitly targeted and directed to those individual families, students, and student cohorts concerned within those particular schools.
The Australian government’s changes to social security benefits and Family Payment Part A payments will be done by the Australian government; that is its responsibility. There have been discussions between the two levels of government. However, the Australian government will be explaining those changes, and the consequences of failing to be either at school or at least undertaking 25 hours worth of training, in order to receive those benefits.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. Last Friday we had a program at Palmerston High School called Better Futures - the old Work for the Dole program - if you do not work for the dole, say no to the dole - where kids were encouraged to make a quality decision regarding their future choices. Can you describe what programs will run in schools from 2010 to assist students in making informed decisions about their future?
Mr HENDERSON: Within all our high schools we have careers advisors and careers counsellors. Top-quality material is available to students to support and guide them to make decisions regarding what subjects they need to take to pursue certain career paths or job opportunities. The changes which have taken place this year require all Year 10 students to have undertaken a personal learning plan, as part of their assessable work, where students sit down with parents and careers advisors and map out where they might be going in the future. This has been part of the curriculum from the beginning of this year.
I am aware there is significant support in our schools through careers advisors and careers counsellors. Recently we graduated an additional 79 careers guidance counsellors, not only into the Territory government system, but also the non-government system across the Northern Territory. Students have access to that information.
I visited the careers room at Casuarina Senior College recently and was very impressed with the quality of information to guide students into the right subject choices to reach their goals. Those provisions are in place.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Chief Minister. It is good to hear there are additional careers advisors. How many of these careers advisors currently have paid positions in Territory government schools?
Mr HENDERSON: Leader of the Opposition, with all due respect, this is not the estimates process. I can take that on board and get you the information. This was a commitment by our government to put funded careers advisor positions back in Territory high schools, which had previously been removed and were unfunded. We have grown that commitment. I do not have the number with me today, but I know we graduated an extra 79. I met a number of these careers advisors at Casuarina Senior College recently.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Chief Minister. How many of these career advisors will be located in non-urban Territory schools?
Mr HENDERSON: We are working on the new National Partnership Agreement with the Australian government regarding youth participation in work. There will be additional funding coming through that to expand the number of coordinators in hubs across the Northern Territory. We have not reached a final agreement with the Australian government, however, part of the vision of the expansion and creation of towns across the Northern Territory is to increase the quality and availability of vocational education and training. I envisage we would have careers counsellors in each of those towns; however we are working with the Australian government on a National Partnership Agreement to expand the number of career counsellors throughout the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Chief Minister. Going back to your communications strategy, I note you say it is explicit, it is specific, and it is targeted to students and families of 15-year-olds. Could you describe the strategy to reach those who will become 15, or are 12, 13 and 14, because, if this bill is passed, it is more important, would you agree, that those who are 12, 13 and 14 need to be prepared for a change in their capacity to make decisions. Is it more than an explicit strategy, as you described, to those who are 15? Can you tell us about the strategy which will go to the younger ones, those who are just commencing middle school?
Mr HENDERSON: The communication plan will be part of the lexicon of conversations in our schools. Once the change is made, it is made, and everyone will know the change has been made. I doubt there are many 12- or 13-year-old kids in the Northern Territory having conversations with their parents around the dinner table asking: ‘What am I going to do when I am 15 and I leave school?’ These changes will be national, they will be consistent, and they will be well communicated. Students at 12, 13 and 14-years of age will know very quickly, if they had an ambition to leave school the day they turned 15, that ambition will no longer be supported, and the option of leaving school, sitting on the couch at home, pretending to look for a job and receiving Youth Allowance, will no longer be available. The parents of those students will not be able to claim family tax benefits, if their child is under 17 years of age, if they are not in full-time school or doing at least 25 hours of training or full-time employment a week.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Chief Minister. Can you describe the strategies you have in place to communicate with Defence personnel who arrive at different times throughout the year?
Mr HENDERSON: This change has been well supported by our Defence personnel, and this is another move in having a consistent education framework across Australia. The Territory was one of the last jurisdictions to move their compulsory school leaving age from 15 to Year 10 completion. I believe 100% of Defence personnel, who are transferring to the Northern Territory, would have children who are already subject to these requirements in other states. There is no explicit and clear communication plan, but when a family moves in and the student is 15 years of age, as part of their enrolment, they will be clearly advised of the leaving age requirements in the Northern Territory. This is supported by our Defence personnel.
Mr MILLS: Chief Minister, I refer to section 20A(7). What special circumstances, other than a child being seriously ill, would be considered as a reason for exempting a child from participating in an eligible option?
Mr HENDERSON: Each case would be taken on its merits. The explanation in the bill is an explanation only. There is any number of scenarios where an exemption could be made on advice. Maybe an athlete is competing overseas in a special competition. You cannot outline every potential occurrence.
Mr MILLS: How would it work for someone in a remote school? Could you describe how it would not be used as an ‘out’ clause easily? It is fairly loose.
Mr HENDERSON: That would not be an exceptional circumstance. The legislation says very clearly: only where the Chief Executive thinks it is appropriate to do so. The type of scenario you are envisaging would not be supported.
Mr MILLS: Can we have an example of considerations which would warrant an exemption?
Mr HENDERSON: If the child is seriously ill, participating in approved interstate or overseas competition, or special education circumstances are examples. If there has been a breakdown in the family structure and the child, for whatever reason, has to be removed from an area for a period of time.
To categorise all examples would be almost impossible, but special circumstances would have to be well argued, based on a commonsense approach, that it is impossible, for whatever reason, for the child to participate in one of the eligible training options.
Mr MILLS: Section 20A(9) states:
- (9) Subject to the regulations, participation on a full-time basis in paid employment is participation for an average of 25 hours a week.
Where are these regulations?
Mr HENDERSON: The wording ‘subject to the regulations’ is a facilitative measure. The requirement for employment will be participation for an average of 25 hours a week. That is the intent of the legislation which has been agreed through COAG. Subject to regulations would be, if someone was working 60 hours per week for 5 weeks and then wanted to take a period of time off and not participate in full-time employment or training. This is not the obvious intent of the legislation, and there will be a capacity within the regulations to prevent people from undermining the intent of government that, in order to not be at school until the age of 17, you have to be in employment for a consistent average of 25 hours per week. It is a facilitative phase; the policy intent is that a person needs to be in paid employment for an average of 25 hours per week.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. That could be achieved by getting rid of the word ‘average’, would you not say?
Mr HENDERSON: We are trying to get a national definition of consistent, substantive, full-time employment. Those hours may change from 20 hours one week, to 30 hours the next week, then 24 hours, then 27 hours, particularly in hospitality industries or retail industries where hours may fluctuate, and that person is, on average, working around 25 hours per week.
We are trying to prevent a scenario where someone works 60 hours per week for a period, then tries to rort the system and receive Youth Allowance or have access to family tax benefits, when they are sitting on the couch at home for the next three months, arguing they have worked 60 hours a week for five weeks, do the maths over 10 weeks, and are entitled to so many weeks off.
Mr MILLS: If the eligible option is akin to school, and a student goes to school for about 30 hours a week, should not the eligible option be no less than 25 hours a week? It tightens it up.
Mr HENDERSON: Leader of the Opposition, we have nationally consistent legislation. The legislation has to be workable in the intent of government, which is to maximise Year 12 results. It does acknowledge some students will be in the workforce, but we want them to be substantively and consistently in the workforce. That is the national definition which has been arrived at, and will be supported by Centrelink and the Australian Tax Office when making determinations for payments.
Mr MILLS: The last question in this section. I started questions on this clause subject to the regulations. Where are the regulations? Are there regulations which sit alongside this? If so, where are they?
Mr HENDERSON: Just a point of clarification. Are you talking about regulations under new section 20A(9) or the amendment bill as a whole?
Mr MILLS: It refers to: ‘subject to the regulations’. I am assuming there are regulations, and part of the regulations would pertain to subsection (9). There must be regulations somewhere.
Mr HENDERSON: I am advised it is a standard legal enabling clause to facilitate the regulations, if required. The intent of the legislation is an average of 25 hours a week.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, given that it is now past 8.30 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we will now report progress on the consideration of clause 5 of the bill. The Assembly will then resume.
Bill reported to clause 5; report adopted.
Debate suspended.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is after 8.30 pm; the House is now adjourned.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, tonight I pay my respect to a respected senior Warlpiri woman, an elder of the Yuendumu community, who recently passed away – Nungarrayi Egan.
Nungarrayi’s passion was to maintain her people’s culture and connection to country and pass this knowledge on to future generations. Nungarrayi worked at the Yuendumu School from around 1969 until her retirement about five years ago, first as a teaching assistant and, later as a classroom teacher having successfully undertaken formal training at Batchelor College.
For many hundreds of Yuendumu children, it was Nungarrayi who first introduced them to formal schooling and who gave them their first lessons in reading and writing. By the 1980s Nungarrayi was an active member of the school council, and other leadership groups at Yuendumu. She was a natural leader and was dedicated to the goal of bringing the best of Warlpiri and European knowledge to the young people of Yuendumu. She was a role model to younger Warlpiri teaching assistants, and to teachers who could always count on her support.
I quote from her friend, linguist, Mary Laughren, who worked closely with Nungarrayi:
- Nungarrayi did not see school as just about teaching reading and writing. She had a much broader vision of educating which included teaching children about their natural and cultural environment and heritage.
Nungarrayi was full of ideas and enthusiasm for creating a better learning environment for Yuendumu children, which would prepare them for life in a complex world, where both Warlpiri and European knowledge was needed and should be respected.
Her name is on many of the Warlpiri books still being read in Warlpiri community schools in Yuendumu, Willowra, Lajamanu, and Nyirripi.
Mary tells the story of when Nungarrayi took three months long service leave in 1983, and she came to the Yuendumu School’s Language Room every morning and worked for three hours annotating the Warlpiri-English dictionary. Nungarrayi wrote definitions of words, gave meanings and brilliant examples of sentences to illustrate the words. Nungarrayi’s works will stand as one of the main contributions of Warlpiri knowledge to the dictionary. This also illustrates how generous Nungarrayi was with her knowledge, time and energy.
Nungarrayi was also an accomplished artist, and in the 1980s she started to paint traditional designs, as part of the Warlukurlangu Artists group, and won first prize in the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award run by the Museum and Art Gallery NT.
Nungarrayi was one of the founders of the Mt Theo Jaru Pirrjidi program in 2002. She drew strength from her cultural heritage and she wanted to share this with young people, many of whom seemed to have lost their way. Nungarrayi took the young people to places and explained the stories about the places, their names and the knowledge of the families associated with them.
Another project which Nungarrayi embraced in her retirement was the Warlpiri Songlines Project, which aimed to record, transcribe and translate traditional Warlpiri songs, noted their owners, the stories and ceremonies associated with them and the places they related to.
Nungarrayi painstakingly wrote down the words of hundreds of songs, along with information about them, and wanted this information to be kept in a form that would allow it to be passed on to the next generation.
Nungarrayi and her husband, my uncle, Thomas Jangala Rice, also produced many maps of the country showing the songlines, photographed the sites and drew many beautiful paintings of Warlpiri country.
It is fitting that one of Nungarrayi’s paintings will be on the front cover of the Warlpiri Picture Dictionary which is soon to be published by IAD Press.
I acknowledge Nungarrayi’s family who are here, in particular, her granddaughter, Jacinta, those who are listening through the Internet at Yuendumu, and to all her family out at Yuendumu and through the Warlpiri communities, who I know are sadly missing her.
I also thank those friends who helped me with this adjournment and the words which have paid tribute to Nungarrayi, including Bess Price, Mary Laughren, and Suzie Lowe at the Mt Theo program.
To my own family, my condolences go to my uncle, Thomas Rice, and to all the families through the Warlpiri communities. I am sorry I could not be there for the funeral. This condolence is to show a sign of respect for not being able to attend the funeral, and also to show a sign of respect to Nungarrayi’s family and to the great work that Nungarrayi has done.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Nungarrayi has left us with a strong legacy, and my life is richer for having known her.
____________________
Visitor
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Jacinta, the granddaughter of Nungarrayi Egan. I ask you to join me in extending a very warm welcome to Jacinta.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is great when parliament comes to Alice Springs, because the Parliamentary Education team comes and spends time with the schools and provides education to the students.
I was fortunate to participate in the education programs in my schools recently at Braitling Primary School and Larapinta Primary School, with the Speaker, in a forum that the Parliamentary Education team ran.
I pass on my thanks to Sue Crowe, the Principal; Amanda Bond, the classroom teacher; and the students from Braitling Primary School: Reece Anderson, James Bell, Bo Clarke, Marcus Cohen, Rebecca Cooper, Zawadi Corstorphan, Emma Gaskon, Darcie Hargrave, Githin Kurian, Skye Lander, Ashleigh Middleton, Maddie Organ, Georga Sallows, Sigrid Smith, Laura Stevens, Teilla Whitington, Jack Wright-Bacchus and Michelle Young.
I thank Braitling School for participating in the Parliamentary Education program, and I am sure those young kids had a great time learning.
I also thank Mr Stewart Moyses, the Principal of Larapinta Primary School, for allowing the Parliamentary Education team to visit the school. I attended two classrooms, Year 5/6, Mrs Candy Kerr and Annie Lewis, Indigenous Student Assistant, and Year 5/6, Ms Jessica Lambshead, with relief teacher, Rachel Sweeney.
I will go through the students’ names from each of those classes. In Year 5/6 (Lambshead): Hayley Annesley, Riley Bennett, Jessie Chester, Bailey Clarke, Peter Cowley, Evan Crawford, Connor Harris, Kristie Heffernan, Paige Hiestand, Caitlin Ireland, Liam James, Natasha Kirkpatrick, Angus Lanzarin, Rachelle Neilson, Daniel Newman, Lachlan Nugent, Daniel Oakes, Brayden Salmon, Jamee-Lee Stuart, Dylan Sultan, Connor Thomas, Rachel Viney, Jesse Wade and Tahlae Walters.
In Year 5/6 (Kerr): Dimiti Andresen, Kayla-Rose Bathern, Thomas Bell, Ebony Bennett, Oliver Campbell, Tristan Campbell, Leighton Fuller, Butros Gaac, Ella-Mae Hampton, Jessica Heller, Dominic Innes, Karina Kenny, Emma Markham, Hannah Malloy, Evangeline Oster, Phillip Ponado, Elizabeth Rankin, Cameron Richards, Azeem Shabir, Chloe Skoss, Ebony Soloman, Ryan Sultan, Kyle Summerfield, Mei-Li Tarce, Tahlia Tickner, Jacob Tilmouth, and Ben Wade.
I thank Madam Speaker for coming along the following day and running a Parliamentary procedure in that classroom. We debated a couple of things, including whether hats should be worn in the classroom and whether mobile phones should be allowed in school. It was an interesting day and Madam Speaker kicked a couple of students out, which was quite fun.
I visited Harts Range School recently, with the member for Macdonnell, at the invitation of Daniel Slade, the teacher, and his assistant teacher, Christina Stevens. I thank them for inviting us to share our experiences of the parliament, what it means to be part of a democracy, and the Westminster system.
I also thank the students: Kerryn Andrews, Beryl Davis, Clayton Webb, Breanna Kunoth, Darryl Kunoth, Tristan Kunoth, Natasha Ross, Kelvin Ross, Leroy Young, Darren Petrick, Travis Petrick, Shikhera Dempsey, Caitlin Webb, Junior Rankin, Shaunie Bloomfield, Farren Schaber, Simone Corporal, and Sarah Davis. Once again, I thank the teacher, Daniel Slade, for allowing us to visit, have a great time with the students, and to sit and talk to them about politics, parliament and democracy.
I also thank Vern Hardie, Principal, Alcoota Middle School, for having us out at Engawala for the day and allowing us to participate in the same sort of program, sitting down and answering a question from each student and telling them a little about politics.
Congratulations to the new joint owners of Travelworld, Alice Springs: Dunja Ganama and Saffron Russell, owner-managers; Laura Randall, Senior Consultant; and Simon Jenkins, Consultant. I wish both Dunja and Saffron all the best in their new business, it is tricky getting into business and not everyone survives, but you do not know if you do not have a go. I wish them all the best and hope they have wonderful and prosperous future.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Deputy Speaker, being the last sitting before Christmas I take this opportunity to say my thanks and express my Christmas wishes for 2009.
However, it is with great sadness, I give my sincere condolences to the Jong family on the loss of their eldest son, Victor. My son, Alex, was Victor’s friend and schoolmate at Darwin High School. To Victor’s wonderful, caring parents, Theresa and Pa Fong and his siblings, I let you know our hearts and prayers are with you, and we share your intense pain and sorrow.
We are at the last sitting in Alice Springs, and I extend my Christmas wishes to all people in Alice Springs. I also extend my wishes to you and your family for a merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year.
To all the members of the Legislative Assembly in Darwin and Alice Springs, who serve us so well, my best wishes to enjoy Christmas with your family, and a great and prosperous New Year.
I extend my best wishes to all my constituents, and I send special wishes to some very important people in my electorate: Peter Gordon, Casuarina Police Station Superintendent, John Guinane, Officer-in-Charge, and all the hard-working police officers for doing such a wonderful job in Casuarina throughout the year. I also send my best wishes to Sergeant Mike Read, and his staff, at the new Police Beat shopfront which, since its establishment, has completely changed the face of the Casuarina Shopping precinct, which extends from the Casuarina Shopping Square to the Casuarina Shopping Village and surroundings. They have done a tremendous job, and I congratulate them and I wish them all the best.
I wish all the businesses in my area a merry Christmas and a happy New Year and an especially prosperous Christmas shopping season, despite the global financial crisis. It seems Darwin and the Territory are enjoying a reprieve and many people will be spending, buying their Christmas presents. To Ben Gill, his staff, and the tenants of Casuarina Shopping Square; Tony Miaoudis and the tenants of Casuarina Village Shopping Centre; Chris Voudouris and tenants of Casuarina Convenience Centre, and all the other small business owners.
To my wonderful staff, I wish you a merry Christmas and happy New Year: Jenny Djerrkura, Kylie Bell, Maria Billias, Karen Lewis, Deidre Logie, Ray Clarke, Andrew Blake, Phil Hausler, and Fred McCue. I was very sorry to see Nikola Lekias leave and Gino Luglieti getting another job, my best wishes and many sincere thanks to them for the wonderful support they provided me throughout the year.
Best wishes to my supporters and friends, without you I would not be where I am today, and I know you always support me and, when I need you, you are always there, especially my helpful volunteers and members of the Casuarina Labor Party Branch. They have done a tremendous job throughout the year. I wish you all the best and we will continue to work together.
I also congratulate my campaign manager, and new mother, Natasha Fyles and her husband, Paul, on the birth of their new baby boy, Oliver Andrew; and I am sure the proud grandparents, Andrew and Cheryl Fyles, are over the moon with the birth of their first grandchild. I saw Andrew the other day and he had a smile from one ear to the other, and he was racing back to the hospital to see the baby feeding. It is amazing what a new arrival can do to your life, as the member for Brennan knows and also the member for Greatorex.
My best wishes to my family. I was exchanging some views with the member for Port Darwin and I believe we were sharing the same story: there will be some days in the future when we will regret the fact we did not spend more time with our families. I know they miss us. I always remember the day my young son told me he was happy we have television at home, so he could see me sometimes. It brings to mind that we probably spend too much time doing our work and not more time with our family. Margaret, Alexander and Michael, thank you very much for your support; merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year, and I promise next year I will spend more time with you.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have 10 minutes, as opposed to six minutes and forty seconds, but I believe I have 10 minutes to get through a couple of matters.
First, taking up from where we ended in parliament last month in relation to child protection, I put a couple of things on the record.
Thank you to those public servants, and others, who raised the issue of the baby who was released to a relative, notwithstanding the grave concerns they expressed. Thank you for talking publicly about the matter. As a result of their brave and courageous actions, there is now a board of inquiry into child protection, although a board of inquiry is nowhere near as extensive as many of us would like.
However, I put on the record my thanks to those courageous people who took the first step of speaking out. They, I, and my colleagues, were somewhat appalled by the minister’s conduct, pretty much from the first day or after the questions were asked in parliament. The minister’s handling of this, as I said today in Question Time, was utterly appalling. However, her veiled threats in relation to the staff were disturbing. Those public servants, in particular, risked much, and they were subjected to criticism and veiled threats by the Minister for Children and Families, who should, I believe, as they do, be ashamed of herself.
They were also aghast at the minister’s comment that her:
- … primary concern is what has been raised about these children in the media.
That is an extraordinary thing for the minister to say, in all of the circumstances. If she thinks the people involved and, indeed, they are people who work in her department, have forgotten those comments, she is sadly mistaken. It should not have come to that. Almost without exception, every part of her conduct was utterly atrocious and disgraceful.
I now refer to her conduct in the parliament, where she said, time and time again, in response to questions I asked in relation to this baby, she would be willing to give information directly to me. I refer anyone who doubts what I am saying to the Parliamentary Record dated 22 October, where they will see reference after reference to the minister clearly misleading the parliament by saying she would be happy to talk with me about these matters, and not doing so. In relation to …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Araluen. Your point of order, member for Johnston?
Ms CARNEY: Can I preempt it? I withdraw ‘misleading the parliament’ - perhaps there is no nice way of saying it – but being, in my view, less than honest with the way she conducted herself in Question Time.
What makes it worse, was that as a result of these extremely serious matters, we sought a briefing, which I attended the following day, and the minister failed to attend - an act which I thought was embarrassing for the departmental staff involved, and also disgraceful. On my way to the briefing, I was abused by a ministerial staff member. I took separate action in relation to that matter and I received an apology from the staff member concerned, and from the Chief Minister’s then Acting Chief of Staff.
I was also subjected to a number of attacks by the Minister for Children and Families, which included, inter alia, an assertion I was politicising children, meant in a derogatory manner. She repeated those remarks on ABC and commercial radio. I regard those remarks as deeply offensive and ask her to apologise for them. She repeated those remarks in a telephone conversation I had with her. Let me repeat: I regard those remarks as extremely offensive and I believe she should apologise.
What makes it even worse was, in a radio interview, on local 8HA radio, on 11 November, the minister said:
- Look, as members of parliament, everyone needs to speak up for children … and I do not fault that in the member for Araluen, I think it is important that she raises it and does it in the way that she does.
It seems that the Minister for Children and Families no longer stood by her offensive remarks - intended in a derogatory manner – in relation to politicising children.
There is plenty more to say, and no doubt plenty more will be said, but I make it clear that her remarks are not only offensive, but they were embarrassing to all of those people working in the child protection system. I will, as will others, unlike the minister, continue to advocate for children, and some of the people involved in this particular case went to hell and back on this issue. We do it because it is the right thing to do; adults are meant to help and protect children, if we do not, who else is going to do it?
Child abuse, in all its many forms, is political and it is a political issue. Child protection and children’s rights are political and are political issues, especially when governments fail them.
I direct the minister to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - always a good read - almost universally agreed to by the nations of the world. If this minister does not think that children’s rights are political, then she should stand down immediately and do some other portfolio, because this is not the portfolio for her. 1
Moving to another matter entirely, leaving that sad and sorry chapter, I refer briefly to a matter on behalf of my constituents. In the last sittings, by an e-mail dated 14 October, I was advised that some senior citizens in my electorate had signed up to get solar panels under the Alice Solar City scheme. After they signed up for the solar scheme, they no longer received a senior citizen’s discount on their power bill.
We heard the Chief Minister talking today about the importance of climate change, yet the NT government took away, or takes away, the rebate from seniors when they are trying to do the right thing by saving the environment and looking for alternative energy sources by putting in solar panels, and yet this heartless government does not help them out. They wrote or, I believe I sent an e-mail to the minister, or my constituents did. The minister, by an undated e-mail letter, but it was a couple of days or so after 14 October, gave them two pages of gumph. Were they dissatisfied with it? Absolutely - it is two pages of gumph, and one paragraph is as follows:
- I understand that when residents of the Alice Solar City install a photovoltaic system and connect to the Power and Water Corporation electricity grid, they can offset their power costs by selling generated energy back to the Power and Water Corporation. Customers’ power bills are then the difference between the electricity they have used and the power they have fed back into the grid.
This is a convoluted way of trying to justify why the government does not provide a senior citizens or a pensioners rebate for power. They can fly men to the moon, why is it that this government cannot provide a rebate for people, senior citizens, trying to do the right thing, in my electorate and presumably in yours, yours and yours? As a parliament, we are encouraging people to look for alternative energy sources, in Alice Springs in particular, the Alice Solar City; we were kicking goals for Alice Springs, it was a good thing for the community of Alice Springs.
I believe the Mayor of Alice Springs is still present, and I wonder if he knows some of the senior citizens he represents do not get a rebate, by doing the right thing and signing up for a solar scheme. I believe it is disgraceful, and I believe that other senior citizens will be similarly surprised.
Minister, I look at you and say that my constituents were utterly under-whelmed with your response. I urge you, as the relevant minister, to do what you can; you are the minister. I know you take advice from your department, but you are a minister of the Crown, and you can and should do something. As my constituents said in their e-mail of 14 October:
- If going green means being punished, then there is definitely something wrong with politics.
Indeed there is, and I add: There is something wrong with the Labor Northern Territory government.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to Dr Dirk Megirian, Curator of Geology, Northern Territory Museum and Art Gallery, who sadly passed away in July 2009, after a long battle with cancer.
Dr Megirian had worked as the Museum’s Geologist since 1985 and his research on fossils, particularly the extinct megafauna of the Northern Territory, is a lasting legacy of a great scientist.
The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory conducts an annual fossil excavation, of four to six weeks, on the Alcoota Scientific Reserve, during the cooler winter months. The Alcoota Scientific Reserve lies within the Alcoota Pastoral station, on NT portion 4075 and is approximately 105 km north-east of Alice Springs.
The dig this year was held in July, and Dirk was working at the site when he passed away. Whilst it was a very sad time for everyone at the site, they took solace from the fact that Dirk was at a place he loved and he had the opportunity to spend time with friends and colleagues who visited Alcoota during the field season.
Alcoota is one of four known vertebrate fossil sites from the Cenozoic era, or the Age of Mammals, in the Northern Territory. The site provides a unique insight into Australia’s terrestrial fauna during the Late Miocene, the interval from about 5 to 9 million years ago and, because of its importance, is protected as a heritage place within the scientific reserve.
The fossil site holds the remains of thousands of individual animals in a massive jumble of bone, with the Alcoota fossil beds producing some of the best, most diverse and complete representatives of larger extinct animals, such as species of marsupial rhinos, marsupial tapirs and giant flightless geese.
The excavation is supported by a dedicated group of volunteers. These volunteers are of all ages and come from a diversity of backgrounds and professions, including teachers, university students, tradespeople, business people, and some scientists who normally work in other fields.
This year over 100 visitors and volunteers attended the site. Participants included Dr Gavin Prideaux, a palaeontologist from Flinders University; Dr Peter Latz, distinguished local botanist, and Dr Peter Murray, who retired last year as the Curator of Palaeontology with the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. A number of students from Flinders University and the University of Western Australia also attended the dig.
Three quarries were opened for the 2009 Alcoota Field Season: Main Pit, South Pit, and South Quarry on Hill One. The excavations yielded over 700 fossil specimens, of which 211 have been cleaned and prepared. Ten species are represented, including 35 elements of the giant, flightless bird, Dromornithidae.
Highlights of the 2009 excavations are the recovery of the complete, essentially perfect, cranium of a large Baru crocodile and a beautifully preserved snout of a smaller Baru specimen, with all of its teeth in place. The Baru specimens are remarkably fine and of considerable scientific importance, in addition to their potential interest to the public in exhibition.
The Baru and a large, exceptionally well-preserved cranium of a huge marsupial browser, Plaisiodon centralis are currently undergoing preparation at MAGNT in Darwin.
On 3 September 2009 the ABC’s 7.30 Report program broadcast a story about the Alcoota fossil site titled: ‘Red Centre’s 10 million year old drought discovery’. Information on this documentary can be found on the ABC website at:
At its 185th meeting, the Museum and Art Gallery Northern Territory Board agreed to forward a letter of condolence to Dr Megirian’s widow, Ms Carmel O’Neill, and to arrange for a memorial plaque to be installed at the Alcoota Scientific Reserve. Discussions are also taking place with Dr Prideaux to organise a joint annual vertebrate palaeontology field survey in Dr Megirian’s memory.
I am sure members of the Assembly will join me in passing on our condolences to Carmel. Dirk’s passing is a great loss to the Territory.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, on the Queen’s Birthday weekend, in the mighty desert country of central Australian, the 2009 Finke Desert Race was run, won, and lost by some seven hundred competitors.
This was the third year in a row I competed in this gruelling desert race. This year, we successfully failed to complete the race - that is successfully failed - dropping out due to engine failure whilst running second in Class 5. However, Dave Fellows and Andrew Kittle brought home a hard-fought, back-to-back win in the Peter Kittle machine. Ben Grabham fought the depths of the desert sands to take his third win on his KTM motorcycle.
A few weeks ago, I came to Alice Springs to the launch of the 2009 Finke Desert Race DVD. The well-attended event allowed us all to see a fantastic, world-class production viewed on the big screen, or maybe the medium-sized screen, at the Juicy Rump. It went to air on Imparja the following night and has since been aired twice, including on NITV, as far as I am aware. This, added to the fantastic feedback I received, clearly demonstrates the international standard this event has reached. Well done to all the committee and volunteers who make this event possible for us petrol-heads to enjoy
I point out that the Mayor, who is here tonight, is a fantastic committee member who has done so much for the sport which has done a great deal for Alice Springs. At a recent Finke Desert Race committee AGM, Mr Antony Yoffa, who was also here earlier, and Nina Hargrave were awarded life membership of this fantastic Desert Race committee, and this is a fitting acknowledgement for their long years of service. Anyone who has dedicated their time to serving on committees, for any type of sporting event, understand it is often a few who put the effort in to get so much out. This is a great acknowledgement for their long years of hard service, which has surely shown, with the many Brolga Awards, this event is progressing to become a very long-standing, iconic event. Congratulations to the Finke Desert Race committee and your great Australian race.
I go back to my electorate of Drysdale. The other day, I was at the Palmerston Christian School and I was asked a question by some students, and I would like you to consider this question, which I thought was very powerful question: ‘Mr Bohlin, how much power do you have?’ I thought, gee whiz, that is a very good question. I said: ‘I do not have any, I am just a member of parliament; our power comes from the people; the people who elect us give us power, and without their blessing, we have no power’.
The people of Alice Springs, who came to meet us today, have shown a fine example of that power; their choice to protest on several issues, to come and sit with us while we open this parliament in Central Australia, and the power of the fact we are actually in front of the people in Alice Springs.
The people are the power which makes the parliament; without them, we have nothing. We are here to serve them and, ministers should consider that is their job.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight about a recent road trip I made to Kununurra and the Ord River region.
First, I thank Noel Wilson, the Kimberley manager for the Department of Agriculture and Food, who was generous with his time and assisted in helping to arrange meetings and provide ideas of where I should visit while in the area. To see Lake Argyle with your own eyes is an amazing experience. What a remarkable resource we have in the north.
My trip also included visiting the Wyndham port, and learning about the products and services which leave that port, servicing Asia with fresh mangoes and live cattle. It was apparent this area will need major infrastructure to grow into the future. One of the area’s major obstacles is the distance from southern markets and road and rail limitations. One thought was, if there is ever a rail built into north-west Western Australia, instead of going across from Tennant Creek, it would go across from the Katherine area and go through the Ord River as it meanders towards the Kimberley coast.
I was interested to learn of the new money coming into the area to support infrastructure as Stage 2 is developed. Perhaps there are real opportunities for the Northern Territory to capitalise on this new infrastructure and economy of scale, so to speak, by ensuring any infrastructure, such as the planned water channel, is constructed with the capacity to provide sufficient water for irrigation over the border in the Northern Territory.
It is also noteworthy to mention the salinity issues they need to monitor and effectively manage in the area. However, it was a shame to see there was one use of water in Kununurra which did not seem to be quite right; the township uses bore water. With all the water in Lake Argyle and the Ord River system, the town uses bore water. With all that water coming down the Ord River, it was hard to say why, but, to add insult, apparently there was a recent development where two separate water lines were installed, one for potable, treated bore water and untreated water from Lake Kununurra for use on lawns and trees, but it was not approved. Some say it is because you cannot guarantee someone would not drink the untreated water, which is just rainwater from the dam.
I believe this is short-sighted and an indication of bad planning. I sincerely hope, as the area grows and new land is released for housing, common sense can be applied and a split system water service provided. Hopefully, the same thing can happen in the Northern Territory.
It was fantastic to drive over the new bridges over the Victoria River, in addition to the number of approaches leading to and from the area. The elevated roads will improve Wet Season access in the area.
One area I will speak about is border protection, not the border protection we see every day on the news regarding illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, but the Territory border protection for our horticultural and pastoral industries. The first thing you notice, on entering the Northern Territory from the east, south, or west, is the terrain on either side of the border is just the same.
I recall when crossing the border one time with my son, Jackson, he said to me: ‘Dad, there is not much difference between this place and the Northern Territory, is there? It is just like the NT’. ‘Of course’, I said to Jackson. The logical boy he is, he rightly pointed out there is no difference whatsoever; a border is just an imaginary line in the sand.
However, there are many differences. The first, and most noticeable, difference is the open gate; no apparent restrictions, other than the 110 km/h Territory-wide speed limit notification. When leaving the Territory the other week, I was stopped at an inspection point and a ranger provided me with a list of prohibited items and products. As you do, when you are going for a drive down the track, you purchase incidentals like drinks, fruit and, perhaps, carry a sandwich to enjoy on the road. This time was no different, except that I had purchased enough fruit before leaving Palmerston to last me for the whole week in Kununurra. As you might expect, every fruit I had was prohibited from going into WA. In fact, it made me think of the recent Paul Hogan movie, Charlie and Boots. On their little journey from southern Australia to the far north, Boots purchased not one but two large punnets of strawberries at a roadside stop along the trip, only to find he had to dispose of them down the road at a checkpoint.
When the officer was looking in the rear of the car, he happened to notice a six-pack of imported beer, and I am sure he checked the list again just to make sure imported beer was not prohibited in WA. I seriously thought I was going to have to give up that six-pack, and I said to myself, that will be the last time I buy imported beer. Seriously, it made me think, more so on my return journey, after seeing the range of products produced just over the border in the Kununurra region; all that produce and not one restriction in place when coming across the border. While it is true a checkpoint or an inspection station cannot rule out preventing everything, it can prevent the majority and, perhaps, prevent persons willingly bringing in or introducing hazardous products, substances, materials, species, weeds or plants into the Northern Territory and potentially ruining a number of our industries.
Let us look at a local issue across the road: Mexican poppy, an introduced out-of-control weed, spreading like there is no tomorrow in the Todd River, a problem this government is aware of and is doing little to eradicate or at least manage. The first question is: how did it get here? How did an alien weed, not known in Central Australia, arrive in the first place? Perhaps it arrived in some hay brought from Queensland or some other way. We may never know the real method of its introduction, but we know it is here. What are we doing about it?
The sad thing is that if we had some type of border protection it may not have arrived here in the first place. When the subject was first raised with me last year, I raised the issue, only to be told it was in hand and the department had a plan to manage the spread of Mexican poppy weed, particularly in the Todd River area. From my point of view, as a man who takes the word of another, that is what it is, their word, and what now appears as wrong, I assumed the job was in hand and the department would, in fact, work on managing the problem, and did not raise the issue again in either a letter to the minister or in parliament. How wrong I was, as I was surprised to hear recently, absolutely nothing has been done and it looks as though I and the people of Alice Springs have been duped again by this government - a sad reality, which I believe many Alice Springs residents have become all too familiar with; a government full on announcements and very little on delivery. In fact, other advice I received indicated a contractor had initially been commissioned to spray the weeds, only to have the agreement terminated when the issue seemed to disappear.
That is an example of how this government works, only act when it is in the news, when the opposition shines a light on an area of concern, or when pressure is applied from the outer. What about acting because it is the right thing to do? What about doing something you have initially promised, not wait until it becomes a problem? In regard to weed control, there is an old saying, ‘a stitch in time saves nine’. How much more difficult is it going to be to manage now, nearly 12 months after initially raising the issue?
Madam Deputy Speaker, weed control is a real and ongoing problem. What can we do? What we should be doing is all we can to eradicate introduced weeds, and putting in place a process which mitigates or, at the very least, prevents the problem occurring in the first place.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was gobsmacked tonight, during the education amendment bill. I made note of that when I had my opportunity to speak.
I was gobsmacked by the comments from the member for Nelson, who basically laid bare his support for the Labor Party and, as I said, he is no longer known as the member for Nelson, he is known as the Labor member for Nelson. His decision tonight to …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Speaker has already ruled on the appellation the member for Fong Lim should be attaching to the member for Nelson.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim, Madam Speaker asked that you refer to the member for Nelson by that title in this House.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Nelson has joined ranks with the Labor Party in this place. He said, in an extraordinary way …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go, what is wrong? Old glass jaw is up.
Mr WOOD: You said I have joined the ranks of the Labor Party. You voted for three pieces of legislation today with the Labor Party, does that make you a member of the Labor Party?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Nelson.
Mr TOLLNER: That is not a point of order. Here we go. The point I was making is that the member for Nelson, quite rightly, points out a whole range of flaws in that legislation. He says he has issues with a whole range of things and he does not believe most of it is achievable. He then has the audacity to turn around and say that he has spoken with the Leader of the Opposition, who is putting forward amendments, he understands the reason why the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward those amendments, and he has some empathy with the position the Leader of the Opposition is taking, but he is not going to support them. He is going to support the bill in its entirety that was before the House. To me, that is laying your soul bare, and it is telling everyone what everyone already knows: he has joined ranks with the Labor Party.
At the last election, in the electorate of Nelson, the Labor Party attracted eight percent of the vote, somewhere around eight percent of the vote, yet these are the people the member for Nelson deemed it is appropriate to support; he supports a government which has failed. He has supported the government which has failed on a whole range of issues. When people ask: ‘why has the power gone out in 14 000 houses in Darwin?’ The member for Nelson did that, because he supports this shambolic, useless, pathetic government. Why do Aboriginal people in remote communities have no hope of having a house built for them? That is because the member for Nelson supports this shambolic government, which has had $700m for the last two years but has failed to build one house.
Why is crime rising in Alice Springs? We heard today serious allegations and statistics which show there is a rise in violent crime in Alice Springs. It is very simple, that is the member for Nelson; he supports this shambolic government who cannot get its head around law and order. Why are there longer queues for elective surgery? Why are surgeons - five out of seven surgeons - at Royal Darwin Hospital, threatening to quit and leave the Territory? Surprise, surprise, that is because of the member for Nelson; he supports this shambolic government.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member knows he should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: I was.
Dr BURNS: You were not. You were pointing that way.
Mr TOLLNER: I was looking that way. I was directing my comments …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you could please continue.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask myself, what is in this for the member for Nelson? Quite clearly, there is some reward for this; he is on the government tit.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask the member for Fong Lim to be more careful with his language this evening.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I ask you to withdraw that particular word please, member for Fong Lim, it is unparliamentary and offensive.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay. I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. He is on the …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask the member for Fong Lim to explain why he makes that comment, please, and prove it.
Mr TOLLNER: I will speak to the member for Nelson’s point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my understanding, and I have been informed - I do not know how right or how wrong it is - but the member for Nelson seems to have extra staff. I understand there is a demountable being put at the back of his electorate office to accommodate these extra staff. I may be wrong in that, but at some stage it would be good for the member for Nelson to explain what extra benefits he is getting from this government due to the shabby little deal he has cooked up with it. Is there a demountable going to …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member is making personal reflections about the member for Nelson. He should know the Opposition Leader’s office, since the election, has received extra funding and extra staff, so he is way off the mark and he needs to stick to the facts.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause. I am going to seek advice from the Deputy Clerk on this matter. Could we stop the clock, please? Thank you.
Member for Fong Lim, I caution you about where you are going with the comments you are making regarding the member for Nelson.
Mr TOLLNER: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I only asked the question and, I believe, at some stage, maybe the member for Nelson will explain if there is a demountable going to his office at Howard Springs.
The other thing I query, while the member for Nelson is explaining whether that is the case, is where the member for Nelson has been travelling these last few months, and whether that travel falls within entitlement …
Dr Burns interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I will take the interjection from the Leader of Government Business - it seems he can interject at any time he likes, he never gets pulled up - but I will take that one.
I paid my own way to Shanghai, but I am interested to know who has been paying for the member for Nelson’s interstate travel to look at prisons in this state and that state, and whether that actually falls within entitlement, and whether those types of arrangements are available to other members who are not members of the government. My understanding is they do not; but I am interested to hear some explanation about whether these trips the member for Nelson is taking fall within any sort of entitlement, whether a demountable is going out to his office at Howard Springs, and whether he has extra staff working from his office.
I took the opportunity tonight to download an Australian Labor Party, Northern Territory Branch, membership application for 2009-10 - I will not suggest the member for Nelson should fill it out, mind you, I believe he probably already has - and I noticed the pledge. The pledge says:
- I hereby pledge myself to the Australian Labor Party, to faithfully uphold, to the best of my ability, its Constitution and Platforms and to work and vote for the selected Labor Candidates. I am not a member of any other organisation, which pledges its members to support candidates for public office. I will forfeit my membership if I nominate against any endorsed Labor Candidate.
I do not believe there is anything in that pledge which would offend the member for Nelson, apart from the last line where he might forfeit his membership if he nominates against the endorsed Labor candidate; maybe the Labor Party will not even run a candidate for Nelson at the next election, because it only got 8% of the vote last time. I do not believe it has ever received more than 15% of the vote, so why would the Labor Party even care? It has this fellow where it wants him; they have cooked up a little deal. This shambolic government is in government for the foreseeable future, thanks to the support of the member for Nelson.
The man has sold his soul to the Labor Party; it is shameful. The Territory deserves a hell of a lot better, because what we are getting from this government is absolute nonsense, failure and a total mismanagement of government resources and funds.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will deal with a couple of issues. The first issue I seek to deal with, or raise with the government members, deals directly with the seat of Port Darwin, which is currently suffering a wave of graffiti. It is very disappointing to see this graffiti is appearing in all sorts of places. In fact, groups have been formed, one springs to mind - The Graffiti Busters - who go out and try to paint over the graffiti which has been caused by, I suspect, a handful of these graffiti artists.
I am aware the police have a list of tags and know many of the offenders. I urge the minister for Police to take a walk around the seat of Port Darwin and look at some of these tags, these reckless pieces of vandalism, which are appearing all over my electorate, not least of which is in the mall in Darwin. The mall has several sails in it and, for some strange reason, the graffiti artists have managed to climb up 20 ft or 30 ft walls and onto the roofs of buildings around Darwin so they can spray their useless and disgusting little tags all over the sails, which are paid for by the taxpayers and ratepayers of the Northern Territory and Darwin respectively.
The Graffiti Busters have been working tirelessly to try to attack the graffiti issue in our community, and they are getting increasingly frustrated with graffiti, which is not an art form. Some people complain that graffiti is an art form and, whilst I appreciate, in some instances, there are commissioned works, the vast majority of the stuff placed around our community is done without the permission of the landowners and property owners who are being affected by this. It is a negative message which is sent to tourists who visit our fine metropolis, and to people who live in Darwin, who would like to travel to places like the Darwin CBD and visit the speciality shops, but choose not to because the wrong signals are being sent.
The government is quite happy to see foot patrols located in the Casuarina Shopping Square, and I understand the dispute over that, but I remind the minister for Police that Casuarina Shopping Square is not the only place which requires policing. I hope, amongst all of the violence we see in Mitchell Street, the graffiti we see plastered all over the walls of the streets of Port Darwin, the thousands of drunks who have been apprehended in the seat of Port Darwin over the last few years, the drunks who still inhabit our public parks on a regular basis - you see them on a daily basis - and all of those other things, it has been so assiduously ignoring in the seat of Port Darwin, it would also turn its mind to dealing with these graffiti artists.
I now turn my mind to an issue with regard to my shadow portfolio of Essential Services. As the member for Fong Lim quite rightly pointed out yesterday, some 14 000 Darwin residents were left without power, which was supposed to be sourced from a power source which was part of the fix to the problems we have.
From my understanding, the gas, which failed to arrive in the new Weddell Power Station, was Blacktip gas; this was the gas which was supposed to fix the power problems in the Northern Territory. We have a gas network issue, so something has failed between Blacktip and the Weddell Power Station. What also failed at Weddell Power Station was a competent redundancy to be relied upon in this particular incident.
It is my understanding - and I could be corrected on this; the advice I received is now a year or so old - the generator sets going into the Weddell Power Station were hybrids; the type which could run on diesel and/or gas. I have been advised that may not be the case now. Therefore, I want to know why they have gas only generators in the Weddell Power Station, and why the Channel Island Power Station was not able to pick up the load more quickly than the two hours it took to bring that power station back online?
The Weddell Power Station is meant to be the great new saviour of power generation in Darwin, and so far its track record has hardly been shining, if yesterday’s example is anything to go by. The Channel Island Power Station is not off-line, it is my understanding, and does have the capacity to run on both diesel and gas sourced from ConocoPhillips. Why it took two hours for those generators to put power into the network I do not know, and nobody has bothered to explain to Territorians. If this is the quality of the fix that Darwin residents have to expect, and Katherine residents for that matter, then the fix is going to cause much greater concern than the network, which has been run down over several years by this government because of a choked-off repairs and maintenance budget. Our network is under pressure in Darwin and it is also under pressure in Alice Springs. That is by-the-by for the purposes of this debate.
The network is under pressure in Darwin and we have seen the results of the calamitous failure at the Casuarina Substation. We know the generation has been under pressure, by virtue of the fact that gas supplies from Central Australia have been dwindling over more recent years. The solution was not to source gas from ConocoPhillips, 2 km away from the Channel Island Power Station, no, the solution was to get gas from Blacktip, some 500 km away from the Channel Island Power Station.
I believe it demonstrates the quality of decision-making and thinking we are seeing from this government and this minister in relation to the supply of gas and the supply of electrical power into Darwin. How you can conceivably think that the solution of resourcing gas from 500 km away, when you are less than 2 km from one of the largest gas supplies in the southern hemisphere, remains to me an absolute and complete mystery.
It is an abject failure of this government not to have sourced gas from ConocoPhillips, in the first instance, considering the amount of money that was being spent to put the infrastructure in place to bring Blacktip online, plus the amount of money we are spending on gas from Blacktip, I find it staggering that we were not able to strike some sort of deal with ConocoPhillips. This issue has never been successfully addressed by the Northern Territory government and explained in any sensible form. It is still a mystery of the most profound order to me, that our power station at Channel Island in Darwin is literally a rifle shot away from the gas supply, and yet we have to source gas from near Wadeye in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf.
That is the quality of administration we have enjoyed over our power and water network in recent years. In more recent times, the new minister has demonstrated a monumental capacity to fail in his duties. This minister has failed in his duty to protect our networks, deliver power from capable generation systems, provide housing for Aboriginal people, protect our public housing stock, explain to Territorians why all of these failures have occurred, one after the other, and failed in his duty to provide competent and effective leadership to the people of the Northern Territory.
A minister worth his salt would not sit silently in this place and allow each disaster to unravel one after the other without trying to demonstrate to Territorians what is being done to fix these problems. On the occasions that he has tried to explain a few things away, sadly, the solutions have not matched his rhetoric, and the loss of power to 14 000 Darwin and Katherine residents yesterday is a clear example of a guy who promises the world, but cannot keep the lights on.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I had great pleasure last month to attend the Deepavali function hosted by the Tamil Society of the Northern Territory. The program was presided over by two young people, Kevin Kadirgamar, in English and Dushi Arulanantham, in Tamil.
On my arrival, I was met by Kosala Selvaratnam, President of the Tamil Society; …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I enjoy listening to the member for Johnston, I believe 540 minutes might be a little excessive.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can see that would be a problem.
Dr BURNS: … Sanjai Narasimhan, Secretary; and Senthil Murugappa, Treasurer. Thereafter, was a fantastic night of great entertainment, wonderful food and great company, where traditional lamps were lit, accompanied by a traditional prayer, and the Deepavali song, Illam enjum thebankal, was sung by Sweetha Sukumaran and Vyshnavi Moorthy. Dr Sudha Arunkumar welcomed members and guests and Sweetha and Vyshnavi read the Deepavali story.
Deepavali is known commonly as the Festival of Lights, celebrated all over the world by Hindus. It can be said that it symbolises the victory of good over evil, light prevailing over darkness and, similarly, knowledge over ignorance. In Tamil, Deepavali is divided into two words: deepam and aavali. Deepam means lights and aavali means arrangements, so Deepavali can be said to mean the arrangements of lights in line while saying prayers.
The story of Deepavali is as follows: Narakasuran is the hero of this festival. He is the son of Poomaadevi, Goddess of Earth, and Lord Vishu, Preservator. Even though he was the son of Gods, he meditated towards Lord Brahma, the creator, and got more boons from Brahma. One boon was that he should not die by any means, except killed by his parents. He asked this boon because he thought no parents in the world would kill their own child. However, after this boon was granted, he turned into a very cruel beast. He did not respect anyone, and was very rude to all living things, including saints and rishis.
After long suffering, people complained to Lord Vishnu about his son’s cruel behaviour and prayed for his help to stop it. God Vishnu, in his next incarnation as Lord Krishna, fought with Narakasura, and Goddess Sathyabama, the wife of Krishna, helped the Lord in the war. When the war was at its peak, Narakasura injured Lord Krishna.
By seeing her husband wounded, Consort Sathyabama became furious and she fought with Narakasura, her own son during an earlier incarnation, and killed him. Before dying, Narakasura understood that he was fighting with his parents and he requested Lord Krishna to forgive him. After forgiving, he asked about his last will. Narakasura said that during his reign he did not allow anyone to live happily; everyone lived in distress and in darkness.
He requested the God to allow all the people to celebrate the day of his death, happily every year, wearing new clothes, lighting lamps, burning crackers, and this day should be a remembrance day, to all evil power, that one day there will come peace which will eliminate the evils, like light removes the darkness. Lord Krishna agreed and blessed him to attain celestial heaven.
Following this great story, the students from the Northern Territory Tamil School performed an action song, Kannan enkal Kannan, which tells the story of Lord Krishna and his deeds.
Speeches were then given by the winners of the Tamil Speech Competition held early in October. The first prize winner, in the junior section, was a speech by Caitlin Loganathan, whose topic was Numbers, selected to teach the kids counting in Tamil with relevant phrases. Kenneth Moses won first prize in the intermediate section on the topic, Tamil, selected to teach kids about the Tamil language. These kids were very impressive, and put much work into their contributions.
Then there was a group song about Amma, My Mother, and a stick dance by the students from the Tamil school. These kids used sticks to play out the rhythm of the song, which is praising the Tamil language.
The children who participated in the action songs and stick dance were: Nirthana, Shruthi, Meera, Haripriya, Jothi, Caitlin, Ambika, Keshavaraj, Yathurshan, Kenneth, Vijayeswar, SriRam and Vaikaran.
More cultural contributions included: Radhesh Krishnan playing a song praising Lord Krishna on his flute, which was delightful; the mothers of the Tamil schoolchildren sang a song praising Lord Krishna; and this was followed by a non-classical dance by Venaska Cheliah.
Towards the end of the evening, Karnatic music was played, on one of the cultural percussion instruments with basic rhythms, by Deshan Cheliah. The program ended with a Kurathi dance choreographed by Kajaliny Ranjithkumar.
This fantastic exhibition of Tamil culture was accompanied by a truly magnificent Tamil dinner, catered for and cooked by society members. The curries were some of the best I have ever tasted.
It was fantastic to enjoy the great company of the Tamil Society, and I enjoyed catching up with Mr Ganesan Sabaratnam and his family, Mr Kirunthikaran, Krishna Pillai and his family, both from Moil, and with Mr Antony Sinharajah and his family from Millner.
As President Kosala Selveratnam told me, the function was an opportunity to progress the directives of the Tamil Society in advancing the Tamil language and culture, and enabling its members to foster greater friendships and relationships amongst themselves and the wider Territory community.
It was a beautiful example of all the hard work exhibited by its members and exemplified by its motto: ‘Unity is Strength’.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016