2009-02-18
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Palmerston High School students, accompanied by Mrs Tania Tamotai and Mrs Beryl Brugmans. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, all of us in this House and across the Northern Territory have been deeply affected by the tragic bushfires in Victoria. Territorians from all walks of life have dug deep to raise funds for the victims of those fires. We are being asked to do so again this Saturday at the Victoria Bushfire Victims Concert to be held at the Darwin Showground.
I am pleased to announce that the government will be supplying free bus travel to attend the concert. Free travel from the Casuarina Exchange will run at regular intervals and there will also be free travel on the normal Route 8 buses from the Palmerston and Darwin Exchanges. These three bus services will also assist people to get home safely and reduce the number of cars on our roads. I urge as many people as possible to use these services on Saturday and to raise money for the Victorian victims.
The Northern Territory government will also be providing free buses to and from the national Rugby League game being held at Richardson Park, Ludmilla. Services to the Cronulla Sharks versus Gold Coast Titans match this Saturday will be at regular intervals starting from Casuarina, Darwin and Palmerston interchanges. Departures to the match start at 4.30 pm, picking up at bus stops along the route. Buses will depart after the game at 9.15 pm at regular intervals.
Apart from the boost this will give to attendances at the Bushfire Appeal concert and the Rugby League game, it is part of an increased commitment to use public transport by this government. From 1 January this year, seniors, pensioners and carers have enjoyed free bus travel across all public bus routes. Free buses for Territory students came into effect at the start of this school year.
The Henderson government is the first government in Australia to provide free travel on all existing bus services for seniors, pensioners, carers and students. These groups are frequent users of our bus network as they often have limited access to cars and other transport. Seniors and students often feel the pressure of the cost of living, and free bus travel has cut their living costs and encouraged them to get out and about. It now allows these groups to attend sporting and cultural events far more easily.
For seniors, it makes life much easier to go shopping, visit friends and relatives and get to health care appointments. For students, it makes it easier to attend after school hours sporting, studying and cultural events, and to get home again.
I am pleased to advise that the community response to this initiative has been fantastic, with noticeable increases in the use of bus services by seniors and students; in some cases buses are filling to capacity. Free bus travel means more money in the pockets of our seniors; the Territory already has the most generous pensioner concession scheme in the country. This initiative makes it even better. It means more money in the pockets of Territory families during these tough economic times. This measure has additional benefits to the whole community, it means fewer cars on our roads and a subsequent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Henderson government will also be providing park and ride facilities in the Darwin rural area. Again, this will mean fewer cars and less greenhouse gases, and a saving for Territory families.
This government is providing more buses, more routes and more services; delivering real results.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. We are all deeply saddened by the Victorian bushfires which have occurred, and it shows great community spirit to see so many people supporting initiatives to donate money to Victoria. It is a good initiative of the Northern Territory government to provide free bus services to the concert and the NRL game between the Cronulla Sharks and Gold Coast Titans. It is unfortunate that Parramatta is not playing, otherwise I would have come up for the game.
The free bus travel for seniors, pensioners, carers and students is a good initiative. I recognise it has been free for some time with the broken ticketing machines, but to provide seniors and others this free travel has been a positive. Many people in my electorate have found it very positive. There has been some negative feedback regarding the way people can receive reimbursement for tickets that were already purchased, but that is another matter. There are two key issues to point out. One is we must ensure that it is safe to travel on buses. We know in the Northern Territory travelling on buses is not always the safest; either for passengers or drivers. Even the bus drivers’ union will talk about instances when they have not been safe and how the government is not responding to improve their safety concerns.
It is important to provide these free bus initiatives to functions such as the NRL game to try to reduce the number of cars on our roads and so people do not drink and drive. It may also support climate change, as the Minister for Transport said, but it is more important to reduce our road toll, because the road toll we had last year was absolutely devastating. While the road toll in every jurisdiction in Australia was going down, the Northern Territory’s was sky rocketing - 75 people died on our roads last year because of inaction by this government; failure to test people for drink-driving on the roads, and failure to get police out there. What happened on our roads last year was absolutely devastating, and you should hang your heads in shame at the road toll in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I congratulate the government on its move to allow seniors and students to have free bus travel. The more we can encourage people to use public transport the less pressure on our roads. We keep building bigger roads, but we do not use public transport as well as we should. I congratulate the government for that.
In relation to the Bushfire Council’s concert and the NRL match, it is great to see there is a free bus service; however, the rural area has been left out. We are occasionally looked at when it comes to the V8s, but we are not all rev heads and sometimes we like Rugby and concerts. I ask the government to consider extending the free bus service, for that particular concert and venue, into the rural area, because rural people would also like to travel safely in and out of town.
A park and ride system is a good initiative of the government. We need to see a little more detail. It is unfortunate that there were some changes at the Noonamah district centre recently which did not include the park and ride changes announced during the election. Unfortunately, the new facilities to improve the area for buses to move through, have taken out a large number of car parks that people used - believe it or not - for catching the bus, especially the bus to Batchelor College and to some of the mining developments in the area. The government needs to bring on that park and ride much faster.
Of course, there is my favourite subject: not everyone wants to travel by bus. The good people of Palmerston and Darwin can actually travel safely by bike; there is a great bicycle network. For at least 10 years I have been asking the government to extend the bicycle path system down the old railway line into Howard Springs, then to the Arnhem Highway and beyond. We do not have one inch of bitumen. We were promised last year, led by the local member in Palmerston to the then minister for Transport, who said we would have a bicycle path from Palmerston to Howard Springs. If you go out there now you will see nothing has happened. I hope that will be changed …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their responses and their wisdom. Member for Braitling, that is a great comment about good old Parramatta, I will take that up with the minister. I will seriously recommend that they play Canterbury Bankstown and we can sit together in the stand.
I am pleased to say that safe travel on buses is recognised as a good and positive initiative across all electorates. I take on board that positive comment regarding safe travel on buses and I thank you for that. I will definitely be researching that area. Events and public transport initiatives are a good connection.
The Member for Nelson spoke of public transport and less pressure on our roads. I agree. Also, the park and ride detail. I am very interested in the concept of supporting public transport initiatives and I will be researching that.
If everyone could promote the bushfires appeal at the Darwin Showgrounds this weekend within their electorates, that would be great.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I report on the Northern Territory government and Tourism NT’s support of G’Day USA Australia Week, held between 13 and 23 January 2009.
Now in its fifth year, this is the largest single annual foreign country promotion in the United States. The objective of our attendance, for the first time, was to raise the Northern Territory’s profile within North America; Australia’s vitality as a place to visit, to do business, showcasing trade and investment, food and wine, film, arts, fashion, lifestyle, and Indigenous culture in tourism was highlighted.
A significant $80 000 commitment was made by the Northern Territory government this year to capitalise on the increased awareness of the Northern Territory through Australia the movie and a focus on Indigenous Australia. Tourism NT used these themes to highlight the spectacular natural landscapes, Indigenous culture and Australia’s outback experiences.
Running parallel to the main events, for the first time, was G’Day USA Australia Week and Toronto 2009 in cities across the USA and Canada. A total of eight Indigenous operators attended the successful roadshow, with the Northern Territory supported by Rob Mills from Batji Tours and Kakadu Culture Camp’s Andy Ralph, his wife, Jenny Hunter, and their young daughter, Catherine, who was a hit with the Americans.
Five other operators, with strong Northern Territory product offerings, attended the G’Day USA events, including The Ghan, Voyages, AAT Kings, the Orion and Discovery Eco Tours. Meetings were held with two high profile art collectors in New York to investigate new opportunities for NT art to be profiled, along with an emphasis on promoting the wonders of Indigenous cultures in locations around the Territory.
A partnership with the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, the AWC, focusing on Pungalina and Seven Emu Stations on the Northern Territory border of the Gulf of Carpentaria, culminated with a dinner in New York, with over 300 wealthy wildlife enthusiasts interested in helping the AWC convert this remote area into a conservation reserve, with the support of the traditional owners of the area. The key message at the philanthropic dinner was that the Northern Territory is one of the last untouched wildernesses in the world and assisting the AWC to buy these stations is a worthwhile project. We believe around $600 000 was raised on that night. Importantly, Tourism NT hosted some very high profile media and travel guide guests, including a National Geographic TV producer and a Time magazine journalist.
The Northern Territory government also supported Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu to perform during many of the events at G’Day USA, including Carnegie Hall, with other highly acclaimed musicians, including Jimmy Barnes, with a one-off show Australia Plays Broadway. I understand that Geoffrey was an outstanding success, as Americans appreciate his tremendous musical talent. Listening to the reaction of the crowd made the Northern Territory delegation feel very proud of the high calibre of our Indigenous culture and Geoffrey’s amazing talent.
Strategic meetings were held with Qantas, the Australian key North American wholesalers and Aussie specialist travel agents to discuss predictions of future demand and pricing for the Northern Territory. Perhaps a highlight of the discussions was the outcome of the Tourism NT initiated Outback Airpass Campaign - Fly Free to the Outback. When tourists arrive in Australia, they can fly into Alice Springs, Yulara and Darwin at no extra cost. In six weeks, the promotion produced 2815 leads, 230 passengers booked to the Territory to date, and many more bookings to be confirmed. The campaign has been such a success that a second wave will occur later this month.
In summary, attendance at G’Day USA by my predecessor, the member for Casuarina, was important and timely. The USA is the fourth biggest market for the Northern Territory, delivering approximately 33 000 visitors last year. Despite decreasing visitation levels since the heyday of 2001, in other words, prior to September 11, the forecasts are now indicating a potential 1% increase compared to the decreases in many of our other source markets.
Madam Speaker, the North American market has been amazingly resilient in this current global economic climate, and I look forward to keeping the House informed of how this and other markets develop over the next few months.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the Tourism minister for his statement. It is always good news when we hear about promotion of the tourism industry, not only for the Northern Territory but for Australia, and the commitment by the Northern Territory of $80 000 is good news indeed.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms PURICK: However, what is still concerning, from the Northern Territory’s point of view, is that the tourism industry, being one of our key economic drivers, is not receiving as much support from government as it needs. In the township of Katherine, there has been no new infrastructure facilitated by the government or industry; in Pine Creek there has been nothing new built there since this government has been in power; and in Tennant Creek, there has not been any real new infrastructure there to boost and promote tourism.
I know Jabiru is complicated regarding its leases and landholding; but what has the government done regarding further promotion of Jabiru? It was the federal Labor government that reintroduced park fees into Kakadu, so that is a disincentive. If locals want to go and have a look that is okay, but all the tourists who are coming into the Northern Territory and want to visit Kakadu will now have to pay a park entrance fee.
There has not been much commitment, although we are working with the minister for Environment, regarding the Howard Springs Reserve, which does need some major infrastructure improvements, as does the Berry Springs Reserve. They are both Territory identity places, for locals and tourists alike, and I would like to see more commitment and support go towards those two very enjoyable venues. Another area where this government is lacking is regarding our homegrown film industry. They do give a little support to the industry, but it is only tokenism and never enough. It is through the film industry that we can showcase the Northern Territory.
It is good to get tourists here, but our airlines are a little hit and miss and this government has not done much to stabilise flights in and out of the Territory.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for her general support of this particular initiative. The member for Daly has pointed out the support this government gives within the Katherine region to tourism bodies and to tourism infrastructure. I am aware that some of the infrastructure within Nitmiluk has been supported by this government over the years.
In terms of films, this government initiated the Northern Territory Film Office; there was never one under the CLP. I know that there are some film operators in the Northern Territory who are dissatisfied when government supports a major production like Australia, but I believe that does reap benefits in the longer term for our tourism industry and for business generally in the Northern Territory.
After the sittings, I am looking forward to engaging more with the tourism industry, and I will give further reports to this House.
Ms McCARTHY (Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to inform the House of the appointment of the 2009 Youth Round Table. The Youth Round Table is a program that gives young Territorians the opportunity to speak directly with the Northern Territory government about issues that impact on their lives. It enables the government to better understand the issues affecting young Territorians in their communities and work towards achievable solutions.
This year's members represent a diverse mix of young students, workers, carers, parents, volunteers, and entrepreneurs; all leaders in their own right, with the capacity to offer different and unique insights into issues. This years appointees are: Jessica Cunningham from Nhulunbuy, Ethan Woods-Alum and Justin Heim from Katherine, Rebecca Healy from Tennant Creek, Cindy Schultz from Alice Springs, Nicole Shotton from Douglas Daly, Rebekah Raymond and Craig Pettifor from the Darwin Rural area, Sharah Lyons from Palmerston, Honeylyn Lisson, Robert Pullino, Elise Moo, Steven Pedlar, Larnie McClintock, Felicity Wardle, and Luke Philips from Darwin.
The first meeting of the 2009 Youth Round Table will be held on the 21 to 22 February. I look forward to working with the 2009 Youth Round Table and hearing their recommendations to assist all young Territorians. I am sure all members join with me to congratulate the 2009 Youth Round Table on their appointment.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms McCARTHY: I also place on the record my appreciation for the hard work undertaken by the outgoing 2008 members. Their dedication to their peers and to making a difference to the lives of young Territorians is admirable. The 2008 Youth Round Table investigated topics which included youth perspectives on climate change, programs to promote health, mind, and body, mental health websites, Rural Rokk Youth Engagement project, and youth perspectives on school attendance and retention. The government is currently considering all recommendations and will provide feedback to the 2008 Youth Round Table on the outcome of this. Their work was an amazing effort and they should be incredibly proud of their efforts.
The members consulted with over 1500 young people last year. I encourage the 2008 Round Table members to continue to be active in their community to create positive change. I am always heartened to see young people focused on finding solutions and developing positive outcomes.
Another exciting series of events for young Territorians will begin shortly with the 2009 National Youth Week. As many members would be aware, this is an annual event designed to highlight and celebrate youth across Australia. This year’s National Youth Week is based on the theme ‘Make a Move’, and will be held from 28 March to 5 April.
Thirty grants have been awarded across the Northern Territory for National Youth Week. A wide range of activities such as concerts, expos, workshops, and camps will be available for young people.
The amount of grants awarded this year is $51 000. There is an excellent regional spread across the Territory – six grants in Alice Springs, two grants in the Barkly Region, eight grants in Darwin, three grants in East Arnhem, four grants in Katherine, two grants in Palmerston and rural, three grants across the Top End remote, and two grants in western Arnhem.
A complete list of National Youth Week events will be posted on the web site www.youth.nt.gov.au in March. I encourage all members to go along to their local National Youth Week events and join in the celebrations.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I support this statement and recognise the importance of supporting young people in our community. Young people are very discerning and they can detect tokenism or the real thing. We must make every effort to ensure that our support for youth leadership is genuine and if we ask them questions that we listen to what they have to say and make a genuine effort to engage and implement those suggestions and provide feedback. The one danger is setting up these things to create an effect, rather than to use this to genuinely engage with young people.
I offer some suggestions: first, acknowledge those who have been named. I have gone through the names and I know some of them. I wish you all the very best. We bring our support, from this side of the Chamber, to your endeavours in bringing a voice to matters of concern to all Territorians, particularly the young. Also, for those outgoing, we acknowledge their service, and some who are continuing on.
One of the highlights, in my nine years in the parliament, is the Youth Parliament. I believe there is an opportunity for us to consider the issue of developing youth leadership. There is the Youth Parliament, the Lion’s Youth of the Year, which is another tremendous exercise to showcase and develop young leadership, and the Round Table.
I want to see some coordination between these three endeavours because by themselves each is struggling. Leadership shown from government could provide a greater level of coordination with those endeavours between those three different sections. Do not forget the Student Representative Councils and the young people who have been supported by the school communities; they play a very important role as well.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement. I support what the Leader of the Opposition said: the Youth Round Table and the Youth Parliament are good opportunities for young people to have a say. Taminmin High School is now like a leadership academy, which I think is a great innovation in the rural area.
I believe we should be encouraging many young people to have a say. I take up the point to ensure that it is not tokenism. If we bring out glossy brochures saying we have all these people talking about various subjects, then they move on and next year we have another group. I ask: ‘What effect did it have? Was there any effect on us as older people? Do we take any notice of what they say, or is it just something nice to tell people that we have a Youth Round Table or a Youth Parliament?’
I enjoy the debates in Youth Parliament, especially; there have been some great debates. Sometimes, the leaders have been from the rural area, which seems to breed leaders at times; it may be because they have a bit more freedom out there to say what they like. However, it is a good occasion for young people to express themselves.
Also, getting out in the community is a really important thing. They held ‘Rural Rokk’ last year. We do not get many things like that in the rural area. Young people organised it and it was a fantastic day. There were bands - some of the music, I do not believe my mother would have liked and I was not that keen on it either - which the kids loved. There was graffiti art, I use the word ‘art’ with inverted commas, but there was a graffiti art competition. There was also a skateboard competition. There is this great skateboard facility at Humpty Doo. This event was organised by youth from the Youth Round Table - that shows leadership. That is the on-the-ground stuff we need to see come out of the Youth Round Table.
Ms McCARTHY (Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their thoughts. Yes, member for Nelson, the Rural Rokk was excellent. I was very impressed with the couple of young people who put that together. They showed what can be done with skills they learnt through the Youth Round Table and networking.
To the Leader of the Opposition, the Youth Parliament is incredibly important. This is an opportunity for young people to engage in the political system. I remind members who are on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that the Youth Round Table played a game of soccer with us. That kind of interaction is equally important as the academic side of what they are learning; having the chance to interact in an environment which is fun. I will pass on those thoughts to the young members who have left, and encourage the new members who come on board this year.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various acts that fall within the Justice portfolio, and one act within the Police portfolio.
Acts amended in this bill include the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act, the Police Administration Amendment Act 2007, the Summary Offences Act, the Public Trustee Act, the Legal Profession Act and the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. I will now outline the amendments to each act contained within this bill.
The Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act is amended to clarify the effect of disqualification often adjudicated on grounds of conflict of interest, and to ensure that the disqualification of an adjudicator will not unfairly prejudice persons subject to the time limits imposed by section 28 of that act. The act provides various grounds upon which action may be taken for the disqualification of an adjudicator. An adjudicator may give notice of disqualification themselves, or the Registrar may declare the adjudicator disqualified. The parties to the dispute then have five days in which they may elect to authorise the adjudicator to continue in the role, despite the grounds of disqualification.
However, the status of the adjudicator during this five-day period was unclear. The amendments will clarify where a notice is given by the appointed adjudicator that he or she is disqualified from adjudicating the dispute. Where notice is given by the Registrar that the adjudicator is disqualified, then the adjudicator’s appointment will terminate five working days after the date of the disqualification notice. This is unless, before the end of that five-day period, each party has given written authority to the adjudicator to continue as the appointed adjudicator.
If the appointment of an adjudicator ceases after the five-day period, the applicant can reapply for adjudication under section 28 of the act. In calculating the period within which this application may be made, the period from the date on which the previous application was served under section 28(1)(c) to the date when the adjudicator’s appointment ended is not to be counted for the purposes of the 90-day time limit to apply to have a payment dispute adjudicated. If, in calculating the period to reapply under the new subsection (6A)(b), the applicant does not have at least 14 days to make further application, then the applicant will be deemed to have 14 days after the date on which the adjudicator’s appointment ends to make a further application.
The Police Administration Amendment Act 2007 amended the Summary Offences Act by increasing the penalty for the offence of making a false report to the police in section 68A from a $500 fine or three months imprisonment, to a $200 000 fine or 10 years imprisonment. This amendment did not commence pending a review of the penalty. The increased term of imprisonment under the 2007 amendment would result in the offence no longer being considered a summary offence. As such, if the penalty were to be retained, the offence would need to be moved into the Criminal Code.
Research into penalties for false reports in other jurisdictions showed that there are significant differences around Australia. However, in consultation with the NT Police, it was recommended that the appropriate maximum penalty be two years imprisonment and/or an $11 000 fine. The offence therefore remains a summary offence, which is more appropriate given the nature of the offence. The Police Administration Amendment Act 2007 is amended in this bill by repealing the increased penalty provision, and a new maximum penalty of $11 000 and/or two years will be inserted in section 68A of the Summary Offences Act.
Amendments are also made to the Public Trustee Act. The Northern Territory Treasury advised that all ongoing fees and commissions directly charged by the Public Trustee are considered agency revenue. As such, these monies should be receipted directly through the cashier. Taking this action causes the Public Trustee to be technically in breach of section 14(3) of the Public Trustee Act. The section requires all commissions, fees, charges, levies and expenses charged under the act be paid into the Public Trustee’s Dividend Account. In practice, the only fees currently paid into the Public Trustee’s Dividend Account are those collected under sections 24A and 28 of the Public Trustee Act, being management fees and levies. All other commissions, fees and charges are receipted as agency revenue through the cashier. This bill amends section 14(3) of the Public Trustee Act to require only those fees and levies collected under section 24A and section 28 of the Public Trustee Act to be paid into the Public Trustee’s Dividend Account.
The Legal Profession Act is also amended by this bill. By way of background, under the Legal Practitioners Admission Rules, which were appealed in 2007 and replaced by the Legal Profession Admission Rules, an applicant for admission as a legal practitioner was required under Rule 10 to provide an affidavit in support of their application. The applicant was required to state that they have not been found to have engaged in academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism or where he or she has been found to have engaged in academic dishonesty, required to provide details of that dishonesty. The current Legal Profession Admission Rules also require an affidavit from applicants for admission; however, the affidavit must now address ‘suitability matters’ listed in section 11(1)(b) to (m) of the Legal Profession Act.
The list of ‘suitability matters’ contained in section 11(1)(b) to (m) does not include the previous requirement relating to academic dishonesty. The pro forma affidavit in support of an application for admission, however, still requires the information. This requirement should be clearly reflected as a ‘suitability matter’ in the legislation. As such, this bill amends section 11(1) of the Legal Profession Act to reflect Rule 10(1) (b) of the Legal Profession Admission Rules. This requires that an applicant for admission as a legal practitioner must submit an affidavit stating that the applicant has not been found to have engaged in academic dishonesty such as plagiarism, or if he or she has been found to have engaged in academic dishonesty, to provide details of such dishonesty.
This bill also amends the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act to enable application of sections 26 and 27 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth) (the Mutual Assistance Act). Sections 26 and 27 of that act allows for the transfer of federal or state prisoners to a foreign country for the purpose of giving evidence in a proceeding or providing assistance to an investigation. For this to occur, it is necessary for the state or territory in which the prisoner is located to obtain any approvals required from an authority of the relevant state or territory. As such, it is necessary for the state or territory to have in place legislative arrangements allowing for transfer of the prisoner for the purpose of giving evidence or assistance in a foreign country. There is no relevant provision in the Northern Territory’s Prisons (Correctional Services) Act which would allow for such a transfer of a prisoner as contemplated in section 26 or 27 of the Mutual Assistance Act.
For the Mutual Assistance Act to be effective, this bill amends the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act by inserting a new Division 3 under part 17 of the act. The provisions enable the Director of Correctional Services to authorise the release of, and give leave of absence from Northern Territory custody, to a prisoner for the purpose of travelling to a foreign country to give evidence at a proceeding or assistance in relation to an investigation. The director will also have the discretion to impose any conditions on the authorisation as the director thinks fit.
The act is amended allowing the Director of Correctional Services to, at any time, revoke or vary any conditions attaching to any leave of absence granted under the new Division 3. It also provides that during a prisoner’s absence under these circumstances, that the prisoner is taken to be in lawful custody and the term of the prisoner’s imprisonment continues to run.
The amendments contained in this bill do not in any way alter the policy or intention of this legislation, but rather improves the legislation by providing certainty to previously ambiguous provisions to ensure clarity and consistency with other legislation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 26 November 2008
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill. We support it because it is better to have it than not have it. We support it because, although it could have been better, it is a declaration by the government and, in turn the parliament, that we do not tolerate domestic violence and where people have a reasonable belief that it is occurring, they have an obligation to report it.
We want to send a message to the community that encourages everyone in our community to report acts of violence against women. Violence is a crime; all forms of violence are crimes and we must all act to eliminate them. It is a worthy declaration and sentiment and is therefore worthy of support.
But the bill is a missed opportunity. It does not match the initial intention of government - it is disappointing. It is deficient in one area in particular, namely, only acts of serious physical harm must be reported. Clause 124A (1) (a) of the bill provides that it will be mandatory to report violence if the person has a reasonable belief that:
The word ‘harm’ is defined as:
physical harm that is serious harm.
As for the definition of ‘serious harm’, we are referred to the definition contained in the Criminal Code Act, which is and I quote:
Hence, the type of domestic violence Territorians must report is serious harm, as defined in the Criminal Code:
There is a definition of harm in the Criminal Code which has not been included in this bill. That definition is found in 1A of the code and it provides that:
(1) Harm is physical harm or harm to a person’s mental health, whether temporary or permanent.
that a person might reasonably object to in the circumstances, whether or not the person was aware of it at the time.
Harm is also defined in sections 1A(3) and (4) of the code, but it is the first two subsections of that section that are particularly significant in the context of this debate.
Everyday in the Northern Territory domestic violence is perpetrated in many forms. Everyday women suffer physical harm. Everyday women suffer physical harm which includes pain, unconsciousness or disfigurement. The Territory’s Domestic Violence Act provides a definition of domestic violence in section A, which is:
(b) damaging property, including the injury or death of an animal;
(c) intimidation;
(d) stalking;
(e) economic abuse;
(f) attempting or threatening to commit conduct mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e.)
Harm is defined by adopting the definition of section (1)(a) in the Criminal Code which includes, as I have already mentioned, physical harm which includes unconsciousness, pain and disfigurement, together with other forms of harm. Put simply, the bill does not include the forms of violence that make up its definition in the Territory’s Domestic Violence Act.
When scrutinising this bill, as I am obliged to do as shadow Attorney-General, I am compelled to ask: why the definition of harm is excluded from this bill? And why has government elected to make it mandatory to report certain types of violence, namely, only violence that endangers or is likely to endanger a person’s life or that is likely to be significant and long-standing, and not other forms of violence, such as those outlined in the Domestic Violence Act and in section (1) (a) of the Criminal Code including harm such as pain, unconsciousness, disfigurement, to mention but a few?
The Attorney-General who introduced this bill wrote to me recently, and I received his letter at my office on Friday. He tried, as far as I could see, to justify his government’s position. The problem is the contents of the letter do not match the government’s public statements and, frankly, make little sense. The letter states:
In the next paragraph the Attorney-General wrote:
The paragraphs are plainly at odds with one another, in fact, there should have been the word ‘but’ between them.
This bill, despite the government’s publicly stated position, as recently as this morning - I note on ABC Online - means that it will be mandatory to report some forms of violence against women, but not other forms of violence. The former Attorney-General’s letter asserts, and I quote:
This is an extraordinary thing to say. It fails to recognise that, in domestic violence relationships, violence very often escalates over time. There is a need for early intervention when harm is caused and we should not wait until a woman is subjected to violence that endangers her life before a reporting obligation commences.
The government’s position, as outlined in the letter to which I have referred, and the bill, are at odds with the government’s publicly stated position. A fundamental question arises, and that is: does this bill serve to reinforce the existing attitudes towards violence against women in the Northern Territory, namely the normalisation and enculturation of violence, or will it provide a real mechanism for social change and improve safety and wellbeing for women and children?
It is important to consider the background of this bill, and how and why it is that we have come to this point; it highlights the opportunity that has been lost. Over the last 20 years or so, as some members of this House know, governments and others have tried to encourage women, and others, to report domestic violence. Many years ago it was considered something that happened in the home and was no one else’s business. Thankfully, that view has changed. As a society, we should keep building on it and not, in any way, seek to minimise violence against women, or to send any form of message that some forms of violence against women are acceptable but others are not. No one should seek to undo the gains that have been made over the last 20 years. More specifically, we should look at what has occurred in and from the Territory with respect to violence against women and children.
The Lateline interview with Dr Nanette Rogers on 15 May 2006 was a critical event. Commentators have said - and I agree with them - that the interview has changed, and continues to change, Indigenous affairs in this country. The collective outrage expressed after the interview about the myriad of violence in the Territory was extraordinary. We have since seen a flurry of activity from governments and individuals, and millions of dollars allocated to tackling violence against Aboriginal women and children.
While child sexual abuse became the most talked about and acted on aspect of the interview, Dr Rogers also talked about violence against women in the Territory. In the interview she said:
The next day, Jane Lloyd, Chair of the Domestic and Family Violence Advisory Council, was quoted in The Australian:
On ABC radio the next day, she said that some men in some communities:
I have seen much activity from governments, but I have seen painfully little that directly targets the culture of violence that they talked about. This bill is intended to send a message that violence is not tolerated, and harming women is not tolerated. However, the fact that it only includes ‘serious harm’ sends the message that some forms of violence against women are tolerated while others are not. Violence is violence, and it should not be tolerated.
In October 2006, Coroner Greg Cavanagh delivered his findings into the death of an Indigenous woman who lived on an outstation on the Cobourg Peninsula. She was subjected to years of violence by her partner. The violence escalated in its seriousness. Sadly, there appears to be no understanding by the government of the dangers with what it clearly considers low-level violence and how, so often, it escalates and leads to more serious violence and, on occasion, death. In many domestic-related homicide cases in the Territory, the fatality was preceded by a history of less serious assaults. In a majority of domestic violence-related homicide cases, the women had presented to health and other services with a range of assault injuries, and/or presentations, prior to their homicide. A high percentage of violence preceding the serious harm incidents is unreported.
The nature and extent of violence in Territory communities means there is an urgent need for earlier intervention to prevent serious harm or death, and break the cycle of violence. All forms of violence against women - violence as defined in the Criminal Code - should clearly fall under mandatory reporting. We should not wait for serious harm to occur. Interestingly, Magistrate Cavanagh raised the possibility of making it mandatory for health professionals to report domestic violence. He urged the government to consider implementing a mandatory reporting system relating to the circumstances of domestic violence. That was in October 2006.
In June 2006, I said that I would make it mandatory to report domestic violence. The next day in Question Time, I asked the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, whether she would support the introduction of mandatory reporting of domestic violence. She would not. I asked it again in October 2007. She did not commit to it. As we know, the former Chief Minister responded very badly to the issues of violence against women and children after the Lateline interview in May 2006. The poor performance contributed to and, some would say, caused her demise. In any event the government was publicly at least quiet on the mandatory reporting of domestic violence until mid-last year.
On 9 July, the new Chief Minister and his deputy issued a media release saying that they would introduce mandatory reporting. It was a significant change from the Clare Martin era. Interestingly, it was done very close to the announcement of an election. It appears that they wanted to put this issue to rest, thereby seeking to put some distance between themselves and Martin’s poor response to violence against women and children. However, the rhetoric simply does not match what has appeared in this bill – but, of course, that is nothing new with this government.
I repeat that, under the provisions of the bill, Territorians must only report violence that endangers or is likely to endanger a person’s life, or that is likely to be significant and long-standing. Violence that causes harm, that is physical harm, which includes unconsciousness, pain, and disfigurement, for instance, is not the type of violence that is reportable under this bill. Why is it that only serious physical harm that endangers a person’s life or is likely to be significant or long-standing must be reported, but physical harm such as unconsciousness, pain, and disfigurement are not? Why is it that the government wants to make it mandatory to report acts of serious harm, but does not make it mandatory to report acts of other kinds of harm? Why is it that the government wants to make it mandatory to report serious violence, but not less serious violence? Why is it that the government wants to make it mandatory to report acts of significant violence, but not, conversely, insignificant violence, if there is such a thing?
The effect of this bill is that the government seeks to separate forms of harm, violence against women. The government seeks to distinguish between types of violence against women. The government seeks to send a message to the community that domestic violence must be reported, but only particular types of domestic violence. What is the justification for this position, and how on earth can it be justified? How can it be justified on any basis at all, let alone having regard to the last two-and-a-half years in particular, during which members of this government, and others, have issued endless media releases declaring their focus on tackling violence against women and children? The government has fallen short of the standards it set. This can clearly be seen by reviewing various comments by government ministers and various government publications.
In a media release issued on 9 July last year, the government announced mandatory reporting. The first paragraph of that media release reads as follows:
What the media release did not say was that only serious harm that endangers a person’s life or is likely to be significant or long-standing, would be included in the laws. Elsewhere in the media release, it said:
What the media release did not say was that only domestic violence assaults that cause serious harm that endangers a person’s life, or is likely to be significant or long-standing, are reportable.
Apparently, it is not the right thing to do to require reporting of less serious forms of violence or, indeed, other forms of physical harm. The media release went on to say:
What the media release did not say was that the view of this government is that women and children need only be protected from violence that causes serious harm that endangers a person’s life, or is likely to be significant or long-standing, but not any other kind violence or physical harm.
The media release went on:
What the media release did not say is that this government apparently believes that there is a sliding scale of violence against women and children, because only violence that causes or will cause serious harm that endangers a person’s life or that is likely to be significant or long-standing, must be reported, but other forms of violence need not be.
The minister who introduced this legislation said in his second reading speech on 26 November and I quote:
What the minister did not say, is that the government apparently has a strong commitment to tackling violence that causes or will cause serious harm that endangers a person’s life or that is likely to be significant or long-standing, but it is not so strongly committed in relation to other forms of violence, such as where physical harm, including pain, disfigurement and unconsciousness occurs.
The minister went on and I quote:
What the minister’s second reading speech did not say, was that this bill only reflects this government’s view that it is the responsibility of every member of our community to help break the cycle of violence if that violence causes or will cause serious harm that endangers a person’s life, or that it is likely to be significant or long-standing, but if it does not satisfy that criteria, then it need not be reported.
It is clear that ministers have not kept up with their own rhetoric. Surely they know that this bill, by excluding all forms of violence, other than serious harm, is at odds with their own public statements. What makes it worse, however, is that it is not just a few statements that have been made. The government has been at pains to stress the importance of imposing a responsibility on the community, on sending the message to the community that domestic violence is not to be tolerated and that violence against women, in its many forms, is absolutely rejected by the government and community.
The comments ministers have made simply do not match the content of the bill. Consequently, the message the government is attempting to send and, indeed, the government, are diminished.
Building on our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008–2012 was launched in March last year by the then minister for Women’s Policy. This is the government’s vision for women in the Northern Territory for the years ahead. It has a part devoted to safety. The action plan says, and I quote:
It sounds like something Jane Lloyd might have said. Yet despite getting the sentiment right, the bill, which is aimed at changing community behaviour, falls short. It is quite remarkable.
The current domestic violence strategy does not distinguish between forms of violence against women. Indeed, it says that the government is committed to and I quote:
There are no references in the domestic violence strategy to serious harm. In fact, it proudly boasts that the strategy - your strategy – and I quote:
Your domestic violence strategy covers a broad range of violent and abusive behaviours. In the strategy, the government acknowledges the broad range of violent behaviours and is prepared to take action to protect those involved in or threatened by physical and emotional abuse but, in this bill, only seeks to make it mandatory to report certain types of violence against women. It does not make any logical sense. It does not make sense in light of the government’s previously stated position on domestic violence, and its current one, and it does not make any sense in light of sending a message that violence against women will not and should not be tolerated.
The government recently published Building on our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008-2012, on page 20 it says, and I quote:
It does not seek to separate serious assaults from non-serious assaults, nor does it distinguish between types of violence perpetrated against women. It simply states the horrible truth about our women, overwhelmingly Indigenous women, and the violence they experience. They know violence is violence, and so do the statisticians.
The strategy goes on to state in the action plan, and I quote:
Once again, there is no separation of serious and non-serious assaults. In this document, the government’s own action plan for Territory women, an assault is apparently considered an assault. The reader believes that the government’s view is that all assaults against women are acts of violence and the reader might reasonably expect it to be mandatory to report all forms of violence. How disappointed they will be when they read this bill and know its effects.
I do not propose to quote endless figures about domestic violence. What is clear is that the levels are a national disgrace and the figures available do not take into account the high rate of under-reporting. In the most recent quarterly crime statistics, September 2008, the staggering rate of under-reporting of assault offences is highlighted. It quotes the ABS Crime and Safety survey publication, and states that:
While these figures refer to all forms of assault, there can be no doubt that the rate of under-reporting of violence against women is very high. Given the figures we do have about the rates of domestic violence and given the high level of non-reporting, clearly the actual rates of domestic violence are shamefully high. Does it not follow that if decision makers want to make real in-roads in this area, then all forms of violence against women in domestic relationships should be included in this bill?
This bill does not deal with the massive problem of under-reporting violence. Victims are often too frightened to report themselves; many victims have been socialised into believing that violence is a normal part of intimate partner relationships. Women who are the subject of domestic violence present to our hospitals with a range of injuries. In 2006, a study was undertaken into the number of women admitted to the Alice Springs Hospital since the year 2000 for domestic violence matters. In 2006 alone, the study, undertaken by Dale Wakefield, revealed that 666 Indigenous women presented to the hospital with assault-related injuries. It showed that, on average, Indigenous women presented 36 times in a six-year period with assault-related injuries. Neither the general manager of the hospital nor the government have disputed those figures. Those women presented with a range of injuries.
The government says that only those women who have injuries that fall within the definition of the Criminal Code – namely, serious physical harm that endangers a person’s life or that is likely to be significant or long-standing - must be reported, but not other forms of physical harm. Surely, no one in government would contend that each of those 666 women presented with injuries that fell into the serious harm category. Of course, they did not. Some did, many would not. However, as a result of the bill, some assaults against these women will have to be reported and others will not. It is patently absurd.
The bill is likely to lead to confusion and muddy the message the government wants to send. There can be no doubt that a simple message is required, especially in some of our remote communities. That message is: ‘Do not bash women and, if you see it happening or you know it to be occurring, you must report it’. It goes directly to the culture of violence in some communities about which Nanette Rogers and Jane Lloyd have spoken.
Violence is acculturated and engendered across many communities in the Territory. It has become normalised, and children grow up learning to accept violence, and that violence is a normal and acceptable response. Within this environment, in particular, it is very dangerous to restrict mandatory reporting to serious harm and to leave other forms of violence to the discretion of individuals, family members, community members, and professionals to report. By prescribing only serious harm as the type of violence to be reported, it requires bystanders to make a judgment about the seriousness or otherwise of the violence that occurs. That is not the message that I thought the government wanted to send to the community at large, and remote communities in particular.
At the same time, it provides the ultimate out for perpetrators: ‘I did not hit her hard. She was not bleeding. It was not harm that caused or will cause serious harm that endangered her life and it was not significant or long-standing’.
The exclusion of harm will, potentially, leave women who do not need hospitalisation in a very dangerous position. Furthermore, there is a risk that the message being sent by this government will be interpreted by those who perpetrate domestic violence, or those who experience it and professionals who see it, that this is the first step in the formal, legal decriminalisation of domestic violence. That would be an unintended consequence of this bill.
The government accepted lock, stock and barrel the contents and recommendations of the report into the inquiry Clare Martin called to examine sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. Those who have read it - and I doubt anyone on the other side of the Chamber has - but for those who read it …
Ms Lawrie: Have read it. Read all of it.
Ms CARNEY: You are very rude.
For those who read it, they will recall that the authors contended it was clear that many Indigenous people in many communities did not understand what constituted child abuse. While this was something of a remarkable conclusion, it was a conclusion in any event and was accepted by the government. The authors of the report, at page 74, said:
For my part, I believe that men who sexually abuse children know exactly what it is. However, given that this is what the authors of the report found, then one would have thought that someone in this government might have thought that making the message as simple as possible for Aboriginal people in remote communities was the obvious thing to do.
With this bill, we now have the absurd situation of encouraging Aboriginal men and women to report violence against women, hopefully, with a view to addressing the entrenched culture of violence that is described by Dr Rogers and Jane Lloyd, by giving them a definition that does not include basic and well understood concepts such as physical harm, pain, disfigurement and unconsciousness. Frankly, a simple message is required. Violence is violence, you cannot do it, and if you know it is happening, you have to report it. I am concerned that this bill will not achieve what the government wanted.
Madam Speaker, I am compelled to ask – is the intention of this legislation to provide greater protection to those most at risk of domestic violence, and to prevent serious harm and death, or is it just to improve the rates of reporting and data collection? Does it serve to reinforce the existing attitudes towards violence against women in the Northern Territory, namely the normalisation and enculturation of violence, or will it provide a real mechanism for social change and improved safety and wellbeing for women and children? It would have been good if members of government had asked those questions. It appears they have not.
For all of the reasons I have outlined, this bill is a profound disappointment. It has fallen well short of what government told Territorians it would achieve. Nevertheless, despite the problems I have identified and the bill not matching the government’s rhetoric, it is better to have it than not have it. It is something of an attempt to say enough is enough. It is something of a declaration that the community has an enforceable obligation to report violence against women and children. However, the great shame is that the bill could have been so much better.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the Territory was the first jurisdiction to introduce mandatory reporting for child abuse about 25 years ago. The legislation was regarded at the time, and for 25 years afterwards, as cutting edge. We are the first jurisdiction to introduce mandatory reporting for domestic violence for the whole community. It is a great shame that our legislation will not be as highly regarded as the legislation that mandated the reporting of child abuse.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I speak proudly in support of this legislation. Why? This side of the parliament is taking very real steps in wanting to see social and attitudinal change about domestic violence amongst our people across the Northern Territory, and in particular in our communities. The government is standing up and saying that enough is enough. The Northern Territory is the first jurisdiction in this country to come this close to wanting to attack what we see as an epidemic of major proportions across the Northern Territory. You only have to talk to people on communities to know the amount of doctor travels - the flying doctor service going in and out of communities - to know how many people are flown in and out in relation to violence within their communities.
We know that this parliament is being watched very closely by our counterparts across Australia because we are dealing with the first introduction of mandatory reporting legislation - a world-first, I am advised - a courageous decision by this parliament, and a courageous decision by my colleagues in Cabinet and previous members who have now left.
In 2007-08, there were 2867 reports of domestic violence, and 2594 police-initiated Domestic Violence Orders. The 2867 reports account for about half of all reported assaults in the Northern Territory; half the assaults in the Northern Territory are domestic violence-driven. How can the government be accused of not doing enough? How can we be accused of that when we are the first in this country to make this stand against domestic violence? The same statistics also tell us that Indigenous women are 45 times more likely to be involved in domestic and family violence than non-Indigenous women. As disturbing as these statistics are, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that only 36% of victims actually report to police. This is another aspect about the domestic violence epidemic that must change.
Let us not lose sight of the political importance of what is occurring in this parliament today. Let us not lose sight of the social change that will be brought about for the people of the Northern Territory. It is an historic day, and it is disappointing to listen to, what I consider, the rubbish coming from the member for Araluen. I am incredibly disappointed because it is the member for Araluen who has been calling for mandatory reporting of domestic violence and has been a passionate supporter of this legislation regarding the mandatory reporting of domestic violence.
In 1980 when the prospect of mandatory reporting for child abuse was debated, there were strong voices of opposition in our community. In 1981, the Australian Law Reform Commission released a report into child welfare which highlighted the arguments against the introduction of mandatory reporting for child abuse. The voices of opposition to the mandatory reporting of child abuse from 28 years ago have a very familiar ring to those opposing this legislation today.
I have travelled across the Northern Territory for many months to look at this legislation and to discuss it with legal groups and with women’s services. I know their trepidation and I know they are anxious. I know they wonder where this could lead them. But not one of them said to me: do not do this, do not go down this path, do not pursue the mandatory reporting of domestic violence. Not one person said that. Every person who works with any victim of domestic violence, or any of the perpetrators for that matter, recognises that this is important. There has to be attitudinal change in the Northern Territory. We cannot have half the population being assaulted - being victims in such a way - and not care about what is going on.
Opponents of mandatory reporting of child abuse claimed, amongst other things, that mandatory reporting would result in people not seeking help, that mandatory reporting would result in further violence, it would be unenforceable, that there would be confidentiality issues, and it was claimed that certain occupations could be professionally compromised.
I have had the same responses from different professions across the Northern Territory and I listened to those concerns and I respect them, but what I respect even more is that the people who raised those concerns did not say: do not go ahead with this. We must go ahead with this because we know we have to change; something has to change in the Northern Territory. They have said to me: ‘What we want to help you with is the communication strategy. Over the next four years, the government is committing $15m to a communication strategy to educate and inform what these changes mean.
Let us get to the heart of what this means for people who experience domestic violence. I am incredibly passionate about wanting to see this legislation go through and I am conscious that there are always risks and that we will no doubt uncover things along the way that we have to canvas. But the risks to women and children are so great. I know that what we pass today and what we debate today is saying to our children, and future children in the Northern Territory, that the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory do not tolerate any form of violence; we want our children to grow knowing that they will grow in a safe place and that if there is violence in the home, that if their mother or their aunty will not speak up for themselves, others can.
Let me give you some examples, and I have to relate personal examples, because I grew up in a family where domestic violence was normal. Alcohol abuse on my mother’s side, and the violence that we witnessed as young children growing up in communities, we were made to think that was normal. I can tell you now, it is not normal. But the most difficult aspect is that many people and communities believe it is normal; it is normal to hit your wife and your kids, it is normal to have a fight that leaves someone incredibly ill, so that when they go to hospital, they remain conscious or unconscious, or need amputations. These are the sorts of things that children witness in communities - burning with firesticks, all sorts of things that go on - behaviour that you are made to feel is normal. That is what I am getting at; this is abnormal, and no child should have to see any of those things and grow up thinking that is the way it is, and grow up behaving the same way.
I witnessed my own mum go through years of domestic violence, and one of the heartbreaking things is that you know that the perpetrator is a good man, too. This is what part of this education campaign is about, appealing to men, saying: ‘We need you; we need you to recognise what is going on and we need you to change’. Strong advocates like Charlie King and others in men’s groups across the Northern Territory say: ‘We know that men are a large part of the problem. They are very much the solution’.
I know that those who watch their own family’s domestic violence and feel helpless about doing anything; this is going to help change that, to empower others to take some responsibility for what they know is wrong. It is not a case of standing by and saying: ‘That is not my business; that is their business. I am not going to get involved’. It is about the social and attitudinal change.
I have to tell the story of Rosie; we are probably around the same age. I remember getting a phone call one night saying that she had been flown in on the doctor plane from a community, and she was unconscious. I had to get all the family who were in Darwin prepared to think that this is it. She had obviously been caught up with drinking and fighting with her partner and she had picked up an infection from the violence that she had received over so many months or years - I do not know.
When I got the phone call that she was being flown in, we expected the worst and we went into the intensive care unit at Royal Darwin Hospital. How many times have I gone into that hospital visiting mainly women who had experienced some form of violence? And now I was going to visit someone very special to me. When the nurses said: ‘Look, you all better get ready’. We prayed, we really prayed; we were praying for a miracle, wondering how much chance she had.
No one actually knows what happened because she had not been able to tell anyone. The only thing people knew was that she had tried to get to the clinic, and when she got to the clinic she collapsed. People were trying to piece together her movements. Someone had seen her down by the river; someone else had seen her drinking with a group of people at a house; someone else had seen her trying to walk up to another house somewhere.
So while family members were trying to piece together who she was with and where had she been, we stood around the bed and we prayed. Her daughters were with me, and over the next days, she hung in there. The nurses and doctors were starting to think that she was fighting. She ended up staying in hospital for one year. Rosie survived - she survived - and it was an absolute miracle. However, her left arm had been broken, many of her toes were cut off and some of her fingers. She had not only to recover physically, from what had been a major physical attack on her; she also had the mental and emotional recovery to make.
I used to jokingly say to her: ‘I need your autograph. I do not think I have known anyone who has been in RDH this long’. Many of the doctors and nurses got to know and love her, and helped her in her recovery. The medical staff were tremendous, knowing they were flying a person out and thinking that she was gone. Her will to survive was astounding.
What happened to Rosie over so many years, everyone new about. People in the community knew and no one did anything because they thought: ‘That is their business. Whatever happens is between them’. That is what we have to change. That is what this legislation is about. It is about the care and compassion that is required for others in our community, who may or may not belong to us. It is about the courage to speak up and say: ‘No. Enough is enough. We are not going to do that’. That is my call, in particular, to the men of the Northern Territory, this is about all of us.
When we look at the background of the intervention, many Aboriginal men were made to feel as though they were perpetrators of child abuse; that they were bad fathers, horrible uncles, and that they were no-good husbands. Many of them are good people. They were then and they are still good now. However, there are many others who need a second chance regarding the violence in the home against their partners, and to be reminded that it is not about them - it is about the children. This is what our kids are witnessing in communities across the Northern Territory.
Thankfully, in the department of Family and Children Services, there are workers who deal with this and who deal with the children to help them come through. Unless every Territorian recognises that we will not tolerate domestic violence in the Northern Territory, only then, with that attitudinal and social change, are we going to break down what has become an incredible epidemic in our towns and communities - only then.
Late last year I called on the men of the Northern Territory to support me, because I will be carrying the education and awareness campaign. I sought the support of men’s groups to work with me, knowing that we need them to be a part of this, as we need the women to be strong and stand up.
A couple of weeks ago, at the Aboriginal All Stars and Adelaide Crows football match, we saw the beginning of the launch of the education campaign. The footballers linked arms together, and acknowledged their positions as role models and, especially the Aboriginal All Stars, acknowledging how infectious domestic violence is as a disease in our families. It is not about saying we cannot stop it; it is about saying we can stop it. We can and we must stop it, and we have to do it together as a community of people.
When the Aboriginal All Stars and the Adelaide Crows linked arms, the Santa Teresa mob were at the front of the stadium; the Santa Teresa footballers led by Phillip Alice. I say a very personal thank you to the men from Central Australia who travelled up to support me and Charlie King; to support us in what we are trying to do.
We know that we are not going to solve this issue overnight or by next week. We also know that there are going to be other issues that come up with the complexities of how the reporting works and the mechanics of the legal side of it. We know all that. The reason we are pursuing it is because we know there is a major epidemic in communities across the Northern Territory.
The government is taking a leadership role that is being watched across the country and around the world, and we should not be ashamed of that at all. We are going to find it tough, because domestic violence is an emotional issue, a difficult issue, and there is a great deal of fear involved, not only for the victim, but also for the people who surround the victim and for the perpetrator.
As part of the campaign, I want to ensure that we work very closely with Corrections. I look forward to working with the new Corrections minister, because many of the perpetrators end up in gaol. We need to look at how this education campaign is going to target the offenders in a way that they can come out, as men, who will take on the responsibility for their families, so their children can grow up with a better role model than the one who might have gone into prison.
I call on all men of this parliament, just as I have called on all men across the Northern Territory, to stand with me in saying ‘no more’ to domestic violence as part of this campaign. It is about that kind of leadership. It is about acting if you are aware of things that are going on and encouraging others who may know of things. It is a scourge of our society that has to stop, and we have to encourage one another to do that.
This calendar is the footballers across Central Australia who stood up and said that they will support the ‘no more’ campaign. I have copies to give to the members from Central Australia. It includes things like the Anmatjere Football Club saying ‘men can make families feel safe’, and the Amoonguna Football Club saying ‘strong men play football and care for their families’; each of the football clubs have come together. Look at the example set by Santa Teresa with the football code and the domestic violence code.
It is going to be tough for these communities; by no means are they going to find it easy to say no to players coming on the field if those players have not looked after their family. Those players who have been charged or questioned by the police, or even if they have not been questioned by police, but a member of the family comes up and says: ‘He did not do the right thing there’. That is the kind of stand we need. It has to be community driven, from within our own communities; the police cannot be everywhere all the time. This has to be about every individual taking responsibility for their place in life and for their families.
The Federals Football Club, ‘Caring for family is our goal’; Ltyentye Apurte, ‘The biggest win is beating family violence, getting over family violence’; ‘Standing up for your children’s safety’, from the Papunya Football Club; Papunya Outstation Cats, ‘Looking out for each other’; Ti Tree Roosters, ‘Winning in life is being strong for our women and children’; Yuendumu Magpies, ‘Give child abuse the boot’; Lajamanu Football Club, ‘All men have a responsibility to protect their families’; Yurrampi Football Club, ‘A commitment to care for our kids’; Plenty Highway Football Club, ‘Every day is care for your family day’; Yuelamu Football Club, ‘Weekend warriors for football, and lifetime warriors for our family’.
This calendar was put together by these footballers because they know the importance of this campaign. Centacare has been working with them on this for a long time, and I commend Centacare and the work that is being done. We know that there are perpetrators in our communities and there are men in this calendar who have a history, but I said to the men: ‘Do not be ashamed of your history, come and stand with your team, because you are saying, no more. If you are going to continue, your own team mates are going to tell you to get out’. That is the kind of community campaign we need; a societal and attitudinal change. That is what is really courageous about today’s legislation. That is what is really courageous about the government’s decision to pursue this - a world-first. No fear, but a realisation that something has to change for the better.
Part of the education campaign that I am charged with is to look at how we reach out to the communities and suburbs in Darwin, because we know that domestic violence is not just amongst Indigenous people. We know that domestic violence occurs anywhere, anytime, in any home and in any family. Part of the campaign is to reach all levels of society, whether it is a child living in a family in Fannie Bay or Anula. How we target that audience with this campaign is the strategy I am charged with. I know that we have a tender out for that campaign, and I encourage people to have a look at the website. We want to make sure that when we are talking about social change, that every Territorian, from every walk of life, recognises that this is a significant day in the history of the Northern Territory. I know that this is important.
I commend members of my family who have endured as victims of domestic violence, and I have personally learned from their experiences. I am thankful I have never been a victim myself, but when you stand beside members of your family who are victims, in some respects, you are carrying a lot of the emotion that goes with trying to help them through.
I am very proud of my sister, who endured domestic violence for 12 years of her life. I am very proud that she has been able to come through. It was a difficult road, but I know that her four children are better for the decisions that she has made in life, and we have been able to support her. As a family we made a decision that we had to stop everything and focus on her and the children, because we knew that if we did not work with the emotional stress and strains, and what the children were going through, they would not have such a good chance in life as adults. They might still go off the rails, but I believe we can be satisfied, as a family, knowing that we have helped them and that they have been able to see a different way.
I thank especially my husband, Norm. I believe he is a terrific role model to all the children we have cared for. As a family, we have cared for around 10 children over the past 10 or 12 years, to get them through issues largely related to domestic violence, alcohol abuse and neglect. I believe my husband is a wonderful example of what men can do for their families and how they show leadership to the children who grow in those families. It has been a really difficult road for all of us.
When I spoke earlier about the experiences of my mum, I spoke in the context of her living with another man at the time she went through that decade of abuse. But her strength in enduring and coming through that meant she was able to give the support that was needed for my sister. But you can see that roll-on effect and how families need that support.
I make a special commendation to mum and to my sister. I know this is an important day, particularly for women across the Northern Territory, but also for our men.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, to use a colloquialism: ‘domestic violence sucks’. It is not cool, and it is something that should not be tolerated. I know all members of parliament abhor domestic violence and so do I.
I have some concerns about the legislation, but I will support the legislation. When I say that, I do not want the government to say that I question the sincerity of the minister, or those people who may disagree with what I have to say today.
My target of debate today will hone in on the practicalities of the legislation. I know that the government is trying to do a very important thing; to reduce harm to people in domestic relationships. I thank the minister for allowing me to have a briefing from the department when I raised some concerns about the legislation. The government is trying to do something that no one else has done, although Tasmania has it sitting on the books, and there are some issues which it is looking at and, I believe, reviewing the legislation for various reasons.
I say at the outset that I spent six years on the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council and most of those years were spent discussing domestic violence and a policy for the Catholic Church on the issue of domestic violence. One thing that came out of that was not to have gender specific legislation.
I raise this because there is much discussion that domestic violence is all about women and children; the majority is, and I fully accept that. I asked this question during Estimates last year in relation to domestic violence related offences, 1 July 2007 to 31 May 2008. There was the terrible number of 3490 offences. Of those, 3163 were Indigenous - so you can see where the major problem is, the smaller population with the larger number of offences is Indigenous – and 327 non-Indigenous.
In the case of the non-Indigenous, when you break it up into victims, 229 were female and 98 were male; about one third were male victims. In the case of Indigenous, it is 1905 females, to 258 males. I am not in any way diminishing the terrible effect it has on many women and children, but it would be remiss of me if I did not say that it also affects males – very much so. You can see from the figures, in the case of non-Indigenous, that one third is a reasonable proportion of people in a domestic relationship who are males affected.
I prefer to be gender neutral in this case. But I do make the statement, because it is a reality, especially in Indigenous society, that the largest number of victims are women. I fully appreciate the personal details, minister, you gave us. I spent 14 years of my life coming from middle class Melbourne to, you might say, a third world Aboriginal society, as it was in those early days, and still is in some places. I had never seen violence except perhaps on the football field, and for the first time I saw women being bashed. Standing outside the church on Easter Sunday night there was a woman half covered in blood; her face was just dripping with blood. She had been hit on the head with a sharp object and a man was kneeling over her - his wife - with a steel bar. He was about six foot and probably weighed about 100 kg; she was about 5’2” and weighed half that.
Those images never left me, but no one called it domestic violence. I believe we thought it was sort of normal. One of the great changes we are having, especially in Aboriginal communities, is that we are not accepting that is part of the normal way things are done. I believe it is a difficult change and it takes a lot of work.
When reading the legislation, I thought at first that one of the big problems would be in outback communities. If I go through all the rules which are mandatory for me to report domestic violence, it says first of all it has to be life threatening. So, I have to make a decision: is it life threatening. I do not know how I am going to make that decision. I can hear crockery and windows being smashed and swearing and screaming, but it might be just their everyday blue. I prefer to report that straightaway, to be honest with you, because it might lead to something more serious.
However, if I am the local minister, the CEO of the council, or I am a relation - which is probably even harder – in theory, I am supposed to report that. I know the act says if you believe, that by reporting it, someone’s life is in danger, you do not have to report it. I argue that is an excuse that means no one will report it, because if you live on a little community out in the bush where there might be 150 people, everyone knows everyone else. If you ring up the police and say: ‘Fred just bashed his wife’, and Fred finds out later that you, as the local nurse, reported him, there is a fair chance that some of the family might be around to knock on your door. I have had the same thing happen at a community, where a person came around drunk and asked me for a vehicle. It can be very scary and threatening. When there are no police - as in the community where I was - what is one suppose to do?
The law says you do not have to report, but are we defeating the purpose of mandatory reporting? In many isolated communities, especially, relations are going to get pummelled if they find out that uncle reported it. What I am looking at are the practical issues.
If I disregard this section of the law and say: ‘I am going to be brave enough and I am going to report it’. What has the government done to make sure I am protected? Are they going to fly me out of the community? In the case of an Aboriginal person who lives there, they might not have the choice of being flown out. What will happen to them? What will be the protection for those people? We do not want to aggravate something that is bad enough already, but we have a domestic violence situation which is bad and someone has been injured or whose life is threatened. Are we going to make it worse when someone tells the police this is happening, and they are threatened with violence?
That is why I feel the legislation is sending out a good message, but I am not sure that it is or will be effective. I also take the point the member for Araluen made. I read from a submission, and I spoke to several groups. Relationships Australia said that mandatory reporting did not cover half of it. They queried why mandatory reporting covers harm and domestic violence, yet there is no mention of other serious acts of domestic violence: damage to property, intimidation, stalking, and economic abuse. That is a failure of this legislation. If I heard screaming and yelling, I would not be sitting there saying: ‘I really have to report this because of the legislation’. I would do it because, as a person, one should try to help people in times of danger. It does not matter whether it is domestic violence or not.
We are honing in on a particular problem - and I am not in any way denigrating that problem - but the real problem is violence in our society. Why is that man or woman using violence to overcome a problem? Is it something they learnt when they were young? Is it exacerbated by the use of alcohol? I bet it is both of those. What are we doing in society to change that? We allow drunkenness to be okay.
I have spoken about it many times in this parliament. We make excuses for drunkenness. We provide buses so people are not drink-driving; we make sure there is a taxi rank in Mitchell Street so they are not getting into trouble. Why are we doing that? Because they are drunk; it is okay to be drunk. Everyone thinks it is okay. Eighty per cent of violent crime in the Territory is caused by alcohol. I believe we are sending the wrong message, to say it is okay on one hand and no good on the other. I do not think drunkenness is okay. Having a good time is one thing, but drunkenness, when people totally lose control - we see many young people today doing that – is something that the government and the community should say no to and, at the same time, we should be saying no to violence as a solution to a problem.
I umpire football - I only do the juniors, because I can just keep up with them - and I have seen violence in the under-14s. Some of the violence was reported. These are 13-year-old kids that come up and pummel other kids at the end of the game. It is not a hip-and-shoulder, or the normal sort of bumps you get in a football match. Where did they get that from - at 13 years old? Has someone not told them to control their temper? How much of the violence we are now seeing and trying to change, goes back to parenting and our society? Are we addressing those bigger problems as well? This is like after the horse has bolted legislation. We have a major problem - 3490 offences in the Northern Territory with a population of 200 000. That is a fairly high figure, that is 3490 offences that should never have happened.
I put these comments as positive comments. I understand the fervour, minister, which you put into this legislation, I appreciate that. That does not mean that the technical side - which is not the passion side - which we have to deal with in this parliament, should not be analysed to see whether it is workable; and that is what I am looking at.
I am not the only one. I spoke to the Nursing Federation, and they said immediately that there were glaring omissions in the case of having protection for nurses. If a nurse does get brave enough to report something, where is the protection? They also mentioned the issue of pay-back in a community. They thought perhaps there needed to be protocols in place in communities where a person under threat could be evacuated from that community for their safety. Perhaps there should be agreements with elders in relation to people reporting these incidents. It can be a problem if the elders are the problem.
Relationships Australia also said that it opposed the amendments because victims will fear reprisal; the majority of women want to keep the relationship but stop the violence. It also said some women will avoid seeking help or medical assistance, or partners will keep them away to avoid reporting. I believe they are fair comments. I do not believe it means that the legislation should not keep going forward, but it would be good to hear from the government’s response to people who are far more knowledgeable about these issues than I am; which is why I went to them.
There was also a report by the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse. In its letter to the government it said:
The Clearinghouse continued with a quite detailed submission regarding its concerns. It mentioned a particular case at Cobourg Peninsula, with the death of a lady. One of the things it highlighted was the lack of early intervention. There had been four reports, I gather, before that lady died, and it raised the issue of early intervention. It also raised the issue of the lack of police resources; if there is much more reporting, can the police handle it? I believe that is one of the issues in Tasmania at the moment, does it have the numbers of people in its police force to handle all these extra complaints that may come through the system?
The Clearinghouse also said:
It had concerns about what would happen to health workers who reported domestic violence. It also said that, if you do that, it would strongly support the introduction of a trial of this intervention and its full evaluation. I support that.
The government is saying this type of legislation will be effective. I believe it is fair for me to say, let us see in 12 months if the level of domestic violence has been reduced. Or have the numbers of reportings increased? Have people been threatened when reporting?’
I believe a detailed response to this legislation in 12 months would be good, or in 24 months, because 12 months might not be enough time for everything to settle in. If the government says that this legislation will change things; this legislation is going to make things different - I hope it does, minister, I am not putting your beliefs down one iota. But if you put legislation through, which is based on clauses and subsections and say this law will make things different, then I believe it is the responsibility of government to come back to this House with the figures and the facts; our legislation is working.
If it is not working, then I ask the minister to come back and see where the problems are with it. I hope the problems with it do not mean that we have more violence, of course. As I have said, there might be some issues of pay-back with people reporting it. But if there are problems, I hope the government will come back and say this legislation needs some tweaking, we need to change some things; it is not as good as we hoped it would be. Or it might work out well. I hope the government is open enough to say so. We are introducing the first legislation like this in Australia, and I believe we have to be fully aware that when legislation is introduced for the first time, there will be some issues down the track.
I have no problem in saying that domestic violence does suck; it is not cool. That is the language of today. That is what we should be telling people. But, we really need to get back to the roots of why we have domestic violence. I believe the government, if it is really sincere about changing things, should set up some sort of committee to see what we are doing to reduce violence in our society. Where does it come from, and how can we change things for the better?
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the former member for Katherine, Mrs Fay Miller. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Department of Justice’s Administrative Continuing Professional Development Program participants. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the proposed new legislation is a matter of extreme importance to all in the community and the social damage, cost and upheaval caused by domestic violence is immeasurable and must be eliminated.
I am not sure if I heard the member for Arnhem correctly when she spoke, but my colleague, the member for Araluen, was not speaking against the mandatory reporting, she was speaking in regard to some of the issues that she believed were deficient in the legislation.
I will outline my areas of concern with the details of the bill and associated areas, places where, perhaps, the bill can be improved, and implementation issues that I see arising from the bill. I will give some real-life examples to support my issues of concern. In doing so, I do not believe that I am breaching any person’s trust; however, I need to provide this information to highlight areas of potential deficiencies in the legislation and inability to be implemented properly and fairly.
I extend my thanks to both the previous Justice minister and to the minister for Families for providing briefings on the legislation. Both these briefings were useful and informative, and helped me gain a better understanding of the issues and the legislation’s intent and structure. While both the ministers’ offices and departmental staff were cooperative in assisting with briefings, the same cannot be said for the Chief Minister.
I wrote to the Chief Minister on 7 January, in his capacity as Police minister, and I am still waiting for a reply to my letter. I was seeking details on the Domestic Violence Management Unit within NT Police and the protocols used by police when they attend domestic violence incidents in the community. I thought that the Chief Minister would want to work cooperatively with my side of politics, or any side of politics, to rid our community of this dreadful scourge. Alas, no, he does not see fit.
In researching the bill, I met with various allied health professionals, groups, some church people, police, and many different women and men, with an array of views on the subject matter. I do not believe that I could have spoken on the bill today unless I had talked with these people. It is through them that I have a better understanding and appreciation of this serious social and community problem. That is not to say that I know everything on the matter - I do not - as the matter is surrounded by a thick, black cloak and, at times, underground; that is where the tragedy lies.
Domestic violence has a multitude of definitions, and it is generally accepted that it is harm of any nature that involves physical, emotional, economic, or psychological actions within a domestic relationship that causes harm. While physical harm can be seen and recorded, the other forms of violence cannot be captured so well, hence a real picture of domestic violence is not really known. Added to this situation are many incidents going unreported for many reasons. Sadly, domestic violence has no boundaries. It does not respect any race, culture or age. It occurs in the young, the in-between ages and in the old. It is in urban settings, and the bush.
I support the intent of the legislation, but I do have concerns as to achieving real, positive outcomes that will see a reduction, if not elimination, of domestic violence, particularly in Aboriginal communities, where there are literacy and cultural issues that need to be confronted if this is to really work. I am not convinced that the mandatory reporting requirements will deter people from beating up others in their family home or elsewhere, unless there are considerable education programs, particularly in Aboriginal communities where English is sometimes the second or third language.
The legislation might make you and me, Madam Deputy Speaker, more vigilant in our civic or moral duties. However, I can find no evidence that the potential perpetrators of domestic violence will be dissuaded. How and why would it dissuade a person from a violent act against a family member? Let us take the case of a man who is violent towards his partner. He will not report himself, and I suspect neither will the woman, who would already be intimidated, suffer a loss of self-esteem and most likely be afraid. Many of the neighbours would not know that there will soon be a requirement to report; and even if they do, they still might not want to get involved.
What concerns me about this legislation is that it is reactive and is placing responsibility for criminal behaviour onto health and allied health professionals, and giving them a role in the criminal justice system. What also concerns me is: how far does the definition of ‘health care people’ extend? Who will it scoop up? Understandably, doctors, nurses, dentists, psychologists, physiologists, but what about the feet people, X-ray people and the pharmacists? Is the local pharmacist going to be responsible to report what he or she thinks is a person who has suffered serious harm? And what about the allied health professionals, who does that scoop up? Naturopaths, massage people? Beauticians can make life very relaxed and provide care for one’s health, are they going to be obliged to report? My understanding is that they will be obliged to report. Clearly there is a role for government to educate people, and I believe this will be a massive undertaking. I hope the resources have been allocated appropriately.
What protocols will be developed for these people and by whom? How can one expect a young allied health professional to understand and know about domestic violence outcomes on a person? How will government regulate this part of the legislation? How will government know that a health professional, or anyone else for that matter, has not reported an incident of domestic violence?
I am aware of cases where women have presented themselves to the clinic in Aboriginal communities. This legislation will oblige the person to report the obvious violence and then action will be taken against the perpetrator. How will this actually work? What if the community does not have a police presence? Will the report then go to a place like Alice Springs or Tennant Creek? Maybe they will do it by telephone, and we know the problems with the police communication systems in both Darwin and Alice Springs at this point in time. Has the government given serious regard to how spread-out the Territory is? Do not get me wrong, I want this legislation to work, but I believe with a little more effort and thought we could have a better package.
We are not the first to introduce this kind of legislation; Tasmania tried, but it was unsuccessful in assent and implementation due to civil liberty issues. There is ample evidence elsewhere in the world, and I have researched it, where there is similar legislation. I wonder how much of the experience from that legislation has been drawn upon in drafting this legislation.
Which brings me to another area of concern - the definition of ‘harm’. The legislation says only people with ‘serious harm’ have to be reported, is that like a little pregnant? Currently, if you really beat your missus to the extent that she is gravely ill and in danger, you will get into trouble; but if you beat her just a little, that is okay and you will not be reported. Where is the logic in that? I believe it is very sad that the government seems to differentiate between levels of harm and some people will get help and others will not.
Ms Lawrie: All harm is an offence.
Ms PURICK: Harm is harm, and this legislation by government is at odds with previous public statements by the government where they talk about violence - all violence - and domestic violence as harm.
We know that domestic violence can be a prelude to murder, and we have seen this clearly in the Northern Territory. We also know that domestic violence often starts as slapping and pushing, but can and does escalate quickly into serious and permanent harm, if not death. We need to stop all levels of violence in a domestic setting against all family members. What concerns me is that cases, that I will detail now, will go unreported under this legislation if harm is limited to ‘serious harm’ by definition, which I take to mean almost dying and permanent injury. How sad is that? You have to be really beaten up to warrant reporting.
I will detail a case now which only happened in the last two weeks. A friend of mine, who lives in Stuart Park, goes home at lunchtime for his meal breaks. When he turned into his driveway he heard muffled screaming and thought it was from the television, but suddenly a woman burst out of an adjoining unit screaming for help.
My friend assisted her and called the police. It turned out that her partner had a pillow over her face to muffle her cries for help while he was threatening to kill her. She had struggled to escape and scratched his neck and chest, leaving obvious scratches. After the police talked to both parties, they advised that a DVO order would be brought against her because she had injured him. It did not seem to matter to the police that a 15-month-old child had witnessed the attack and was being held by the man in the unit, which belonged to the woman.
How would this legislation cover a case like that? The woman was not permanently harmed, she was not disabled, she did not have broken arms and legs, but she could have been killed. Yet the police sided with the man who was trying to kill her with a pillow. This happened in the last two weeks in Stuart Park.
Another case I will detail illustrates how some women will slip through the cracks of this legislation because their condition will not be considered as serious physical harm. In the late 1980s, I travelled the track for work and along the way I would visit a family for rest and respite. On one such trip, I stopped on the way down and everything was all right, but on the return journey, my friend was sporting a black eye. I was taken aback but said nothing, as one does not comment on such matters, which are obviously personal and, in hindsight, I suspect my friend would have had a logical explanation. My friend offered no explanation.
Many years later my friend’s family moved to Darwin and I visited their home regularly. One Christmas, drinks were organised for Boxing Day, but in the morning my friend rang to say not to come as there had been a family problem. Without going into details, I went to her home. What confronted me was my friend with the ugliest and nastiest black eye. There was no white to be seen in her eyeball. In fact, the colour of her eye was gone also. The bruise was the length of her face. She had bruises the length of both arms, which were defensive bruising and she was bruised elsewhere.
Given the evidence in front of me, there was no way my friend would not have fallen down from the blow or blows, which in itself led to further injuries. Her husband was absent, which is just as well, from my perspective, and there were other friends present. I wanted my friend to go to hospital as I had concerns for her eye, the eye socket, and her cheekbone. My friend would not go because I know, now, she was embarrassed and ashamed. I spoke later with a police officer friend, and at the time the only person who could make a complaint was the victim themself. Thankfully, things have changed in the way we deal with such matters.
My point is that my friend’s injuries were not really life threatening. She was alive, walking, talking, and showing normal signs of reasoning, although some time elapsed before bruises come out. If it had been a life threatening situation, it occurred well before I arrived that morning. There is well-documented evidence that domestic violence escalates in intensity and seriousness with the passing of time. I believe this family had domestic violence during the length of the marriage. Maybe if the husband had returned to the family home and life had resumed, it would have become worse and I dread to think of the consequences. As it turned out, he never did return to the family home. For that I am thankful.
I believe under this legislation, my friend would have slipped through the cracks, and that is not right. That is wrong. Harm is harm, pain is pain, and violence is violence. Any domestic violence, regardless of what level or intensity, under my definition, is a crime, and a crime in the eyes of the law.
I turn my attention to the resourcing of the agencies to implement this legislation. In talking with many affected and interested people, I have concerns with the government’s commitment to adequately resource police to properly and fully implement the legislation. Let us be honest. It will be the police who will feel the full brunt of this legislation.
What I cannot get out of my mind or get my mind around are the two following situations. A family member reports domestic violence to the police, as they feel serious harm may befall the victim. Presumably, the police will have some protocols to handle the call, but I have seen no evidence – and the Chief Minister has not replied to me from early January - other than the police will use the triage system to work out which is the most serious case to attend to first. We know the police are already overworked and under-resourced, yet here we have again more workload, more reporting, presumably, yet no commitment from government for extra funds for police.
The government is allocating $15m, but it is over four years. If this government is really serious about stamping out and eliminating domestic violence, it should be $15m per year. And there is the situation of the health professionals reporting serious harm. Presumably, they will report to the police. How will the police take action? How will they charge the offender? Will it be the same day, or will it be some time later? How will they gauge the level of assault? And what will they charge the person with? Will the decision be left to a police officer who does not have medical knowledge? No disrespect to the police, but they are law enforcement officers, not medical people. And then what? The offender gets charged, released on bail, goes home, and then what? I shudder to think.
We had a chance to get this right, to work with the community and all those involved with this matter to try to eliminate domestic violence altogether. This legislation is a start in the right direction, but I do not believe it has been thought through properly. No disrespect to the many government officials who I know worked long and hard on this legislation; I understand that it is an extremely complex and sensitive issue, but I have concerns that the government has lost an opportunity to really lead the country, if not the world, as we are told it is.
We are the first place to put this kind of legislation in place and yet it is sadly wanting, and that is going to be the tragedy.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, the other day they opened a new women’s safe house at Nguiu. They called it ‘Pulintjawayu’, after a young woman I called daughter, who died a gory death at the hands of her serial, girl-basher de facto. Her case attracted quite a lot of media attention. The perpetrator was in breach of his parole for prior offending, and the coroner noted that the medical records of clinic attendances for treatment of my daughter’s injuries must have sounded alarm bells about what was going on. The coroner’s comments and the surrounding media attention were, no doubt, an important factor in building the momentum towards this day when Northern Territory legislation is enacted, making it mandatory to report domestic violence.
It is too late for the young girl that I call my daughter, and too late, perhaps, for the strong fighters and people I call mum. I particularly think of Kilapayu Puruntatameri, one of a group of Tiwi women principally responsible for pushing the safe house project forward until it became a reality. Teresita was interviewed on the occasion of the official opening of the safe house, and she said that during the years she suffered domestic violence there was no one to turn to for protection and she just had to survive it on her own. I certainly know that feeling.
I feel a deep sense of wariness as I speak on this topic today, a wariness I know I share with Teresita and so many other women who have suffered domestic violence. We have absorbed the physical blows and we bear the permanent mental scars. We carried on with our double lives of public decorum and private horror for as long as it took to make our homes safe and futures for our kids. Sometimes it was us women who had to go out on the slenderest of limbs and attempt intervention on behalf of another victim.
I have never forgotten the times when, as a relatively young woman, but already a wary and jaded mother, I stopped the partner of one of my closest friends from continuing with the merciless flogging he was giving her out in the street, having ripped off most of her clothes. I stopped him even though there was the threat of a loaded firearm. On other occasions, I have had to use all my powers of persuasion and confidence to remove firearms from drunk young men. I have seen too much of this in my life. The amendment of the Domestic and Family Violence Act to provide for mandatory reporting should be an automatic formality in this place.
Who would dare to speak against it? How could they justify it to the surviving victims of domestic violence whom I have encountered from one end of the Territory to the other?
There is a situation, and I have talked to my colleague, the Attorney-General, and I know there is a commitment that the government will look at it. We have set the benchmark and it is a high benchmark; it is not perfect, but it has set a benchmark. There needs to be some fixing up, but there is that guarantee from the Attorney-General - and I will go through some of the areas that I believe need to be looked at.
It is something I am quite passionate about; I have fought long and hard to get to this point, and I thank all of my Cabinet colleagues because it is not an easy decision when you have to look at the whole spectrum. You know when you have a piece of legislation there will be a number of areas which have to be brought in to make it work. A piece of legislation is just that - a piece of legislation - however, it is an important part of the armoury which is needed to deal with this scourge in our society. It is a world-first, it is an Australian first. Tasmania does have mandatory reporting, but this legislation is universal, and is the same, and as important a step, as our child protection legislation - it is universal, and communities, society, have a responsibility to do something.
My daughter, whom I talked about earlier, went 20 times to a clinic - 20 times - and three times this young girl was evacuated to Adelaide by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. There was very little support. When you read that Coronial and talk to Kilapayu and ask the women why they decided to name the safe house after her, it was to remind the young women of that community - and also the men - that it has to stop; that this violence against our young women cannot continue.
One of the areas I spoke to the Attorney-General about, and I know she will take up, is the situation where an offender who has breached a domestic violence order once or, perhaps many times, is convicted of doing the same thing again, but the conduct constituting the breach does not result in harm being caused to the protected person. I have seen too many times where women have a domestic violence order in place, but it does not result in stopping harm being caused to the protected person.
Under the former Domestic Violence Act, any kind of second or subsequent breach would trigger a minimum seven-day prison sentence. That uniform outcome has been qualified under section 121 of our new act to spare those offenders who breach an order from actual imprisonment because of complicit or contributing behaviour by the protected person. The new wording also provides an out for offenders who go to the home of a protected person without invitation or consent, and instil sheer terror, with the threat of harm being implicit and potential. Why should a second time offender in this category not be treated the same way as under the old legislation?
The second problem - and I had a look at the act where there was a case in which the Attorney-General could get her department involved. It is a recent case: Ashley v Marinov. In that instance, the appellant was a man who had struck the victim on the head causing some bleeding. The assault constituted a breach of the domestic violence order in force, which expressly stated that the appellant must not assault, cause or threaten to cause, personal injury to the protected person. He got off because he was charged with assault on the basis of provocation, which was no longer available to him, but the magistrate convicted him of breaching the DVO.
It was appealed. Justice Thomas upheld that result, but the final appeal to the Court of Appeal, ruled that the appellant had to be acquitted of the breach of DVO because he had already been tried in relation to the same facts in respect of the assault charge. The Court of Appeal made it clear that the outcome would have been the same, regardless of whether the appellant had been found guilty or not guilty of the assault charge.
I have spoken to a number of women who find themselves in this same predicament in terms of charges and that gap. That technical difficulty lies, not so much in the Domestic and Family Violence Act itself, but it goes to the Criminal Code, which confirms that double jeopardy is part of the law of the Territory. If an offender goes to the home of a protected person and assaults her, in breach of a DVO, the prosecution will have to choose whether to charge the perpetrator for the assault or for the breach of the DVO. Therefore, the mandatory minimum seven-day sentence under section 121 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act for a second or subsequent breach of the DVO will, almost always, never be imposed.
There are a number of possible solutions to this second problem. One would be to significantly increase the penalty for a second or subsequent breach of a DVO, where harm is caused to a protected person, so that the prosecution can have a realistic choice as to which charge should be proceeded with – the assault or the breach of the DVO. In the past, I have thought about the issue of mandatory sentencing. When we see the escalating violence occurring, particularly to our women, and going through it on a personal level - I know the devastation of the death of my Tiwi daughter, who I talked about at the start, and the impact on everyone in the community to deal with that - has made my view even stronger that mandatory sentencing and bringing that component back in has to happen. As well as signalling the mandatory reporting of these issues, I believe there have to be severe penalties that go with it. So it signals to these men in these communities, and everywhere, that they cannot and should not be violating these young women the way they are. All of us who go out to these communities see some men who think it is their right to control and lord it over these young women.
I listened to the member for Araluen’s contribution, and the whole issue of harm, I agree, just because the bruises are not visible – domestic violence comes in all shapes and forms, I believe, to many of these young women - and it is not just Aboriginal women. When I was running the health service in Katherine, a number of young, non-Indigenous women came to the Aboriginal Medical Service for support because they were terrified of being seen in the private clinics in Katherine. They came to the Aboriginal Medical Service because they knew that no other non-Indigenous people in Katherine would see them coming there, and they were able to get the support services. I joined the board of the Katherine Women’s Crisis Centre to try to deal with this issue - it was not just black women who were being bashed, there are non-Indigenous women also.
Yes, the violence amongst Aboriginal women is high and it needs to be dealt with, but there are so many silent victims amongst the non-Indigenous population. It concerns me, because sometimes we focus on Indigenous women, and we do need to fix up what is happening and closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, but at the same time there are young, non-Indigenous women in our community who are going through the same thing, with the shame and the unwillingness to deal with this.
Many of the young women I met in Katherine were strong courageous young women who were thousands of miles away from their family, may be on the eastern seaboard and they had no one. There was no one around, there was no family support, and there was no protection. They were left to deal with these issues of being violated behind closed doors and hiding the scars of what was happening to them on a daily basis.
Some of my colleagues on this side know my view and I know sometimes it can be seen as extreme, but witnessing it, seeing it, I believe extreme issues, such as this, need extreme action. I think not just of my Tiwi daughter who passed away; all of us know women who have passed away. I watched my own mother for 40 years. I heard the member for Arnhem, the minister for Families, talk about her mother and the violence.
I watched that as a kid. You know, 40 years of my life growing up was fuelled with it - alcohol fuelled violence. I went into the same type of relationship; it was alcohol fuelled violence. We all go through it and we have to make a stand. I drew the line in the sand even with my own son, because I do not believe that anyone owns another person; and should be able to control and have that level of control over anyone. To take that stance against my own son was probably one of the hardest things I had to confront. This was a young man who had to know where the line in the sand was drawn and, thankfully, he was able to get the support from me and his sisters. I worry because there are not a lot of young men, like my son, who can get that support to work with the anger and aggression which is in them and try to deal with it. It is not about making excuses for them. It is about getting them to take responsibility for their actions.
I want to talk about the bush court circuit and its infrastructure. It is an issue in my electorate of Maningrida which has been brought to my attention. When a bush court is sitting, and particularly if a young woman takes out a domestic violence order or has to give evidence, the perpetrator or a family member of the perpetrator could be sitting directly behind the victim. We need to provide protection for victims of crime, and we should be able to provide whatever support needs to be put in place, particularly with infrastructure.
Maningrida is only one community, but unless something is changed in the court circuit in Maningrida, whether it is victims or perpetrators, hearings will have to go to Jabiru. It concerns me that people will have to go to from Maningrida to Jabiru. During the Dry Season it might be all right, but in the middle of the Wet they have no access. Who pays? Particularly if it is a victim. We need to look at those support structures.
Attorney-General, I know that you will look at the infrastructure and the way evidence is given, particularly for those young women. Many young women I have spoken to in remote communities have said they want to be able to proceed with charges against the offender within a couple of weeks. They have backed away from that, and a lot of that is pressure. But to have evidence given in a small court room in a community, where they are not afforded the same protection as other victims of crime, I believe needs to be looked at, otherwise we are not going to get the justice that these young women, and older women, deserve.
The issue of elder abuse and older grandmothers, who are being abused out in those communities, is also a problem and needs to be looked at. Attorney-General, the issues of infrastructure, and Aboriginal women giving evidence, particularly with domestic and family violence, need to be addressed.
I keep going back to issues of domestic violence and what is the factor which causes a much of it. Grog is still a major issue and I know I can sound like a broken record when it comes to alcohol but I will continue to say, like the member for Nelson and many others in this room, we need to deal with the issue of alcohol. Even though our government bought in a fantastic review, and the former Minister for Justice did much in terms of the alcohol courts and compulsory treatment orders - all of those have to be brought together, all of that armoury.
We have a whole lot of legislation, we have a whole lot programs and money but I believe it all has to come together, because having it fragmented does not save one life on the ground in those communities. If we are serious about this, which I know we are on this side of government, we have commitment and funding, but we have to bring that entire armoury together to make a difference.
It is an issue I feel strongly and passionately about and it is one which has drawn much debate. People have thought mandatory reporting means people are not going to come forward, they are not going to see a doctor, and they are not going to seek the help they need. We have never had that sort of system in place so that is all anecdotal evidence. A long time ago people said that about mandatory reporting in relation to child abuse. I take the view that if a woman is being abused, you can bet your bottom dollar the child is also; that behind every women being abused there are children.
It is not a matter of standing back and saying nothing and doing nothing, because it is not just about that woman, it is about the children who are with that woman. If we look at all the victims and talk to these women, they all wish they had someone who intervened and helped them. Talk to the children. Often the debate gets lost in relation to the little ones who are the silent victims in all this violence. Ultimately, they are the ones this is for, because unless we break the cycle of violence, we are never going to be able to deal with it appropriately.
I wish the Attorney-General and the government all the best. It is good legislation, but there are some gaps we need to plug to bring everything together. I believe this legislation and what we are doing is right for all those women who are survivors of domestic violence, and also the women who have lost their lives. It is not an issue of politics amongst any of us, because every member who stands in this Chamber is committed to fighting and doing something.
We should all remember that issues like this go above any political divide, and that we all need to work together to make it safe; not just for women but also for the little ones out there.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, today I give my qualified support to this bill. First, I advise the House that some of the content of the debate that I intend to put before members this afternoon are excerpts from submissions that I have received in relation to this bill. I received no instructions from the authors as to whether they wish to be named; however, I acknowledge their contributions.
Domestic violence cannot be tolerated in our society and must be stopped. I have seen some horrible things in my time. I am passionately against all forms of domestic violence, including emotional and physiological abuse, physical abuse, and sexual assault. Positive action must be taken through all levels of society to minimise domestic violence and its impacts. Everyone has, at the very least, a moral responsibility to ensure they do their bit to stop or prevent domestic violence from occurring.
It is incumbent on the governments of all states and territories to enact legislation which will provide a framework for the protection of our society. It is also incumbent on the government, in making that framework - in this case domestic violence - to prepare and pass legislation that does a number of things. In the first instance, legislation must provide for the definitions of what constitutes domestic violence, upon whom it is perpetrated, and who should be considered as the perpetrator. In other words, it needs to set out clearly and without ambiguity what domestic violence is, who is the victim, and who is the offender. It must make orders available that can be made out in terms that are simply understood, yet carry sufficient complexity to ensure that the spirit of protection of the victim is upheld.
There must be a sentencing regime that carries with it no mistake as to the seriousness of breaching orders that are designed to protect victims of domestic violence. Contained within that sentencing regime, there will be matters that should be considered by sentencing judges and magistrates to provide them with their own framework around which they can formulate appropriate sentences. These sentences must follow recognised sense in principles that provide the right balance of protection for the victim and of society generally, options for rehabilitation of the offender, and general and specific deterrents.
Legislation must always address the real issue - in this case domestic violence. In saying that, legislation must never be passed in this House just so the government of the day can include it as notch on their belt. This is called lip service, and provides nothing more than unhealthy and unworkable law. I believe this bill, to make reporting domestic violence mandatory in certain circumstances is, at best, lip service.
I believe that this legislation is probably the most ill-conceived and poorly thought through I have had the misfortune of having to review in my various roles. Moreover, it does not take into account how the legislation will work on the ground. It is shallow and does not represent just how complex domestic violence really is.
Domestic violence is a complex issue. It is not simply a case of man hits woman, woman hits man, or man hits child. The government, that directed Parliamentary Counsel to draft this bill, obviously has little or no understanding of domestic violence or its complexities. Often times, domestic violence is rooted deep in the psyche of both the perpetrator and the victim. To illustrate this, one only has to look at the research which has been done in relation to generational domestic violence. It is widely accepted that children who grow up in a family where domestic violence is committed regularly have a higher chance of growing up to become either domestic violence victims or perpetrators.
One only needs to look at the many domestic violence victims who are afraid to leave their violent relationship. This fear is rooted in their minds, often on a number of levels. Victims may fear that they will lose their children if they leave a relationship. They may feel that having a partner, albeit one who bashes them, is better than having no partner at all. Victims may fear further violence and reprisals from their violent partner if they leave the relationship.
I know of domestic violence victims who, having left the relationship, left the state in which they lived, changed phone numbers, told only their most trusted family members where they were going, still live in fear of being found and dealt with by their former violent partners. I know of another case where a young lady was savagely bashed by her partner. She was punched and kicked; she was hospitalised and miscarried her unborn child, but she continued to stay in that relationship being bashed, mentally abused, and raped for a further two years before she was able to seek assistance. She was so deeply scarred by the relationship that she has only just stopped having nightmares about it. It took her about 10 years to reach that point, and if my memory serves me correctly, she is probably about 30 years of age now. In that particular case, no one knew that this young lady was going through this horror, because she hid the fact that her injuries were a result of domestic violence.
Where would mandatory reporting have left that young lady? I will tell you where - in the same position she was right then. I believe it is a fait accompli that the amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Act will pass through this House today. It does beg the question, however: why will the Northern Territory be the only Australian jurisdiction with mandatory reporting of domestic violence? I hazard a guess that other jurisdictions have a better grip on the complexities of domestic violence than this government does. They realise that legislation is not a silver bullet.
One advocacy group I spoke to said:
Let us have a look at some of the implications of this legislation. Over the past few months, I have canvassed the issues surrounding this bill with a number of stakeholders that included: counsellors, women’s refuge workers, members of the legal fraternity, and police officers. I note that this bill was put out for public comment before being brought back before the House.
If you take the minister’s tabling statement at face value, a paltry two weeks was set aside to receive public comment. I note that the government has chosen not to table the responses that were received during the consultation period. It would be interesting to see what those responses say; no matter what opinion they represent. I would like to see the public comment that came in during that two week period, and, I dare say, most people in the Northern Territory, who are interested in the outcome of the debate this afternoon, would also like to see those comments.
I know some of the submissions sent to the government form part of this debate today, because those same submissions were sent to me. During the course of the consultation I had with stakeholders on this bill, not one person supported this bill. In fact, there was at least one advocacy group that wrote to the Prime Minister of Australia asking him to intervene to stop the Northern Territory enacting this bill in favour of adopting a whole-of-government approach.
Comments on the bill varied from one professional group to another. Rightly so, each representative organisation focused on the matters they felt affected them or they were most qualified to comment on. It was generally felt that mandatory reporting would initially cause a spike in the number of reports of domestic violence, and this would have a number of immediate flow-on effects. With the assent of this bill into law, an increase in DV reporting, I believe, is almost beyond any argument. I gather that government would be prepared for the spike in reporting. I have some significant concerns about how this would be dealt with on the ground. I am not entirely sure what they intend doing with those increased reports.
First, the police, who are already under-resourced, will find they have to deal with the increased reporting. The Chief Minister constantly crows about those extra police officers; I cannot believe how out of touch the Chief Minister is on that issue. I know, as do all police officers I speak with and most of the general public, this so-called increase in numbers has had no impact on the number of officers on duty in general duties.
These are the officers who will need to respond to the spike in domestic violence reporting which will, no doubt, occur once this bill is passed and brought into law. On some days, Casuarina station cannot even fill two general duties patrols. I spoke to a friend last night who works in a non-operational area. She has to be pulled out of her non-operational area to fill a patrol in Casuarina. I know at times Palmerston suffers the same fate; sometimes there is only one patrol and a supervisor on. I do not know how they are going to cope with the increased workload. No matter how you spin the statistics, there is a severe shortage of general duties police on patrol in the streets of the Northern Territory.
Chief Minister, what you need to do is provide more police officers, but you need to direct the Commissioner of Police to make sure those officers are not diverted into uniform, driving around in marked police cars.
My first question is: where will the police find the resources to deal with the increased reports of domestic violence? No one knows. No one I spoke to in the police force knows. It will not come from the Domestic and Personal Violence Protection Unit, because they are already stretched.
Second, the increased reporting means there will be more domestic violence victims and their children. Many of these victims and their children will need to find emergency accommodation. My question is: where will they be housed? The Katherine Women’s Shelter, for example, operates at about 90% occupancy most of the time. They have only 23 beds for women and children. One extra person per night, as a result of mandatory reporting, will put them over the edge every night. I am not even going to start on how they might be able to cope without additional staff as well. That is a whole other issue I could spend an enormous amount of time on.
Right now, there is only one dedicated domestic violence counsellor in Katherine. Will her workload double, or triple, or even more? No one knows. Once the initial spike in reporting subsides, what then? Reporting will probably drop, but not because there is less domestic violence, and not because the government has found a silver bullet to solve the problem; it will drop because those victims, who do not want their abusive partners reported, will change their behaviour.
It is quite conceivable that the following scenario might occur, and I quote from a submission I received:
The overriding sentiment, common to all the groups who provided me with comment, was that mandatory reporting will not reduce the incidence – not on its own. Counsellors and those who work at women’s refuges feel that mandatory reporting will drive domestic violence underground. For the reasons I stated previously, victims, who do not want their partners to be reported, will go to extraordinary lengths to hide the signs of violence. That is typified by the example I gave earlier of the lady who miscarried in hospital after being bashed.
Conceivably, victims who receive serious injuries will avoid all authorities, including medical assistance. Not only that, but previously confidential service providers will no longer be able to provide confidentiality to their clients. Service providers include lawyers, counsellors, refuge workers, and a whole range of services which deal with domestic violence victims.
In the case of lawyers, I am aware that the government has received a number of submissions from various legal advocacy groups. Where is there an exemption for lawyers from breaking professional, legal privilege in this bill? There is none. I quote from a submission I received:
Such referrals are provided to clients who disclose that they have been victims of domestic violence as well as clients who disclose they have been perpetrators.
Where the client wishes us to, … assists with appropriate referrals, such as by arranging psychological services or counselling, providing support for priority
housing applications and providing intake information for the Indigenous Family Violence Offender Program. On occasion, … also provides referrals to police
and prosecution services, but importantly, this is only done on the client’s instructions.
have grown up witnessing domestic violence. This is important information for a Court when considering an appropriate sentence, including whether to impose
conditions requiring attendance at treatment and counselling facilities.
Interestingly, other groups that share some form of client confidentiality include Centrelink and Territory Housing, both services that are likely to be used when a domestic violence victim is seeking emergency payments or accommodation. These organisations will have an obligation under this amendment.
I move to a conundrum that this legislation poses. It is appalling to think that this issue seems to have slipped under the government’s radar. Sexual assault is a highly unreported, yet significant contributor to domestic violence. Where in the bill is there any reference to mandatory reporting of sexual assault? There is none. In my reading of the legislation, a victim can walk to her neighbour with a broken arm, and that neighbour would be bound by mandatory reporting. Yet, the same victim can walk to the same neighbour, having been sexually assaulted by her partner, and no such mandatory regime exists.
If you look at the penalty continuum, in determining the relative seriousness of serious harm versus sexual assault, section 181 of the Criminal Code provides for 14 years as a maximum penalty for serious harm; yet sexual assault, under section 192 of the same act, carries a maximum penalty of life. Common sense tells us that a more serious offence should have at least the same treatment as far as mandatory reporting provisions as proposed in this bill.
Madam Speaker, emotional, financial, and psychological abuse feature heavily in domestic violence statistics. Emotional and psychological abuse has been found, in some cases, to have longer lasting and more significant impact on victims than physical abuse. Where in this bill is there any reference to this kind of abuse? No where.
It is always easy to criticise, and I give the government a bit of a lifeline about how they might go about dealing with domestic violence in our society. This issue needs and warrants a comprehensive whole-of-government strategy that incorporates community education, early intervention and prevention, adequate support and accommodation services, appropriate legal responses, and clearer guidelines for police in removing the perpetrator rather than the victim of domestic violence from the family domicile.
I relate a true example of how education can help to address domestic violence. Not so long ago, a woman and her two children, both young teenagers, and the victims of domestic violence, found themselves seeking emergency accommodation in one of our women’s crisis centres. Because of the nature of their situation, they stayed at the emergency accommodation for a number of months. I am advised that victims and children staying for that length of time is not an uncommon practice. The three of them, during that lengthy period, received ongoing education, support and counselling from the staff at the crisis centre. After returning to their home, the children, a boy and a girl, now capable of recognising the signs of domestic violence, began to take a stand and intervene when they saw the precursors of domestic violence occurring. That is an example of how a simple concept such as a proper education program, that is funded and resourced appropriately, can make a difference.
There is a raft of measures that should be thoroughly investigated, and I am going to give the government another helping hand. I have plenty of my own work to do, but if the government wants me to do their work as well, that is fine. Without trying too hard, I managed to find a document titled Te Rito, a New Zealand family violence prevention strategy. I do not suppose anyone from the government has seen the document, but if they have - good on them. This is a comprehensive road map for dealing with domestic violence in the Maori community. There are many parallels that can be drawn between the Indigenous people from across the Tasman and our own. This is a relevant document, and an example of how the process of dealing with domestic violence should be done. As I look through it, legal enforcement attracts the merest of mentions, whilst the predominant focus is on the 17 other areas of action identified. If the government would like a copy of this document, I am happy to provide it to them.
The last matter I wish to deal with is that of enforcement of the offence encapsulated in this amendment. While the offence is really a catch-all, that is, everyone commits the offence if they do not report serious harm, etcetera, as per the wording of the amendment; there is an equally broad defence provided for: ‘I thought the other person reported it’. That is the bottom line. That is how far people will have to go when they think of an excuse for not reporting domestic violence.
Conceivably, any person, spoken to by the police in relation to an offence under this bill, merely has to say: ‘I thought someone else reported it’. Does that on its own make this legislation all but completely useless? I suggest so. This is what I mean about lip service and unhealthy and unworkable law. Why would you create such a catch-all offence, only to provide such a broad defence for it? This renders the legislation useless. My only answer to the question is that the government do not have the depths within their ranks to come up with anything better.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that an extension of time be granted, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My concerns go deeper than that. The police are serious about doing their bit to stamp out domestic violence, and rightly so. They have detailed guidelines which they are bound to follow in dealing with domestic violence. My fear is this: the police domestic violence guidelines will change to adopt this amendment. This could result in them having no discretion in how they deal with investigations and prosecutions under these new provisions. This will drastically increase their current workload, block the court system and ultimately continue to fill the already over-full corrections system and gaol. The new $300 000m prison, which is due for completion in 2013, will probably be full by 2015.
Thoughtful, well-written legislation can and should be a part of the supporting framework for a much broader approach to dealing with domestic violence. If this government is too lazy to put in the work to come up with a comprehensive approach to domestic violence, or if it is too short-sighted to realise legislation on its own will never be the ever-elusive silver bullet, then shame on it. I have it on good authority, that the vast majority of comment from the public and various advocacy groups is that this legislation is not supported. I also have it on good authority that the government went against the advice of its own people on the fifth floor and still chose to pursue this path. It will be interesting to see where this goes over the course of the next few years.
It is important for me to remind this House that much of what I have said today is a reflection of what many people told me to be their position. I suspect that had I not brought these opinions and points of view to this House today, the government would not have chosen to do so either - so much for transparent government. I will not place myself, or this side of the House, in the position of being accused of not supporting any measure that may save one victim of domestic violence.
Therefore, on the basis that one person may be rescued from the ravages of an abusive relationship because someone felt legally compelled to report a serious domestic incident, and in the spirit of my very strong personal feeling that we should try anything to stop domestic violence, I will support this bill. However, I put the government on notice; by its shallow attempts to solve a complex problem with simplistic legislation is a slap in the face to every sufferer of domestic violence now and in the future. A large number of advocacy and professional groups have given it the same answers and it has ignored much of the best advice it received.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spoken before on this bill, as the former Attorney-General in the second reading speech, but I have asked the opposition, the members for Port Darwin and Araluen, if they objected to me seeking leave to speak in the debate of this very important bill, and they agreed.
I seek leave of the House for me to speak on this bill.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Deputy Madam Speaker, and I thank opposition members for granting me this privilege of speaking twice on this particular bill.
The member for Katherine underlined the difficulties and complexities in the process of the issue we are dealing with and, as the former Health Minister and former Attorney-General …
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are correct; we do not have a quorum. Ring the bells, please.
Thank you, we have a quorum. Minister, you may resume.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very important bill and I thank members of the House for affording me the opportunity to speak a second time on this particular bill.
It is a very complex issue and, as the member for Katherine alluded to, there are concerns among a whole range of groups about this bill: the legal profession, the medical profession, the nursing profession, those who work in this particular area in shelters and refuges, and those who have the role of counselling. It certainly has raised a lot of issues and the member for Katherine is right, a number, in fact the overwhelming majority of people who responded to the first round of consultations, which was specifically about making it mandatory for health professionals to report, were negative in their comments. The second round of consultations on universal mandatory reporting for serious harm, responded similarly.
It is an issue that government has wrestled with for some time. I admire the member for Araluen, who has been consistent in her call for mandatory reporting for domestic violence over a long period of time; no one could doubt her commitment. Also, the commitment of the member for Arafura, within Cabinet, and others, such as the members for Macdonnell and Arnhem.
I do not want to politicise what I am going to say, but I was disappointed with the member for Araluen’s criticism of the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, when she asserted that the former Chief Minister did not really care much about the issue of domestic violence and had sat on her hands - that was the insinuation - on this issue.
We have found, through the member for Katherine and his contribution, what a complex issue this is. We are not really supposed to talk about Cabinet deliberations, but another champion of making domestic violence mandatory was the former Attorney-General, Syd Stirling. A catalyst for that was the sad and tragic death of - I will call her Ms JP - the relation of the member for Arafura who died as a consequence of repeated domestic violence from her husband, and a failure of the system. The Coroner found a clear failure of the system, both within Corrections and Health, in addressing this issue. The former Attorney-General, Syd Stirling, and all the Cabinet were - upset is not the word – devastated by that particular case and took it very seriously.
The genesis of what we are debating today – and the member for Araluen has been a strong advocate for this for many years - is something the government has been considering - all the issues and more, you could probably multiply by five, all the legitimate issues the member for Katherine raised, and it is very important that the member for Katherine raised those issues – the government considered those issues.
The government considered the issue, first, of mandatory reporting for health professionals. Obviously, the response of the AMA and the ANF was: ‘If you make it mandatory reporting there are a few issues. First, people are not going to present for medical treatment; they will be dissuaded from presenting for medical treatment. Second, it puts health professionals, particularly those who may be in remote communities, where there may or may not be a police presence, potentially in danger because of payback’.
However, the government considered those particular aspects. First, in relation to both medical privilege and legal privilege, the government examined the fact that in the mandatory reporting of child abuse, there was no privilege for either of those professions. We felt that this particular issue was so important that we needed to extend mandatory reporting into this realm. That is an important issue to bring forward; the government did consider those issues.
We considered the issue raised by, I believe, the member for Goyder, and others, about women, particularly women who are the victims, feeling a loss of control at being unable to make decisions about whether it should be reported or not. That issue was discussed.
However, overwhelmingly, we saw the case of Ms JP - the tragic case – and we resolved we did not want to see that type of thing happen again, particularly that level of offending. That should never have happened, and that is why the government looked at all the options. The member for Araluen is quite right; the definition of domestic violence is quite broad and covers a whole range of categories. However, the government decided that this was such a major step - it had been proposed in Tasmania but never implemented - and our understanding is that there are very few, if any, jurisdictions worldwide that have this measure.
The government wanted to be very clear about what the level of harm was, because it could come about through self-reporting. If someone presents at the clinic and says: ‘My partner bashed me up’; that is clear cut, or it may be clear cut. Or if someone presents with an injury and does not want to talk about it, or gives another reason for that injury, it is by deduction, which puts some responsibility on the health care providers to make the decision about reporting.
That is why we have set it at the level. The government is not ignoring the lower level of offending, which the member for Araluen talked about; we are not ignoring that. I am flagging - and I know the Attorney-General will flag it – that, in future, the government will be prepared to take more steps in this regard. But this is an incredibly important and significant first step, and I do not think it should be talked down. The government acknowledges that further steps will need to be taken.
However, we need to be very clear about the first step, because what we are trying to avoid, cut off and stop is the really serious end, which eventuated in the tragic case of Ms JP, so that people in the health clinic will report it; if there is someone in Corrections who is aware of it, they will report it; if there is someone in a school who is aware of it, or in some other agency, they have a responsibility - we all have a responsibility. That is what this bill is all about.
The government realises what the member for Katherine has alluded to. People, for various reasons, in various organisations, do not fully support the step that the government has taken. However, we have had many discussions on this side about this issue, and there are strong feelings. I found it difficult because, as Health minister and Justice minister, the departmental feedback raised many of the issues that the member for Katherine was talking about. But it was this government that had the courage to take a stand and take this step. I have listened very carefully to the debate in this place today. To some degree, I am an outsider in this debate. Unlike others in this House who very honestly lay their personal experiences and their family’s experiences on the Parliamentary Record, and their true feelings before this parliament - which takes courage - and I listened very carefully.
That has not been my experience; that is why I feel, to some degree, I am an outsider. I am an outsider because I have not had the experience that police officers have had in dealing with this particular problem. The member for Araluen, through the legal system, has also had to deal with these cases and she has friends in the legal profession with whom she talks and further appreciates the issues. I am a 60-year-old male and I am an outsider, but I cannot help but be moved by what I have heard today and around our Caucus and our Cabinet table, and also, by the propositions put forward by the member for Araluen.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I fully support this legislation. There are some aspects I believe the Attorney-General will correct. I listened carefully to the member for Araluen, and I will read the Hansard tomorrow, I could have misunderstood her, but she seemed to be saying that physical harm, including unconsciousness, would not be included under the definition of ‘serious harm’ within the specifications of this act. I have been advised that this is not the case; but maybe that is not what the member for Araluen was saying.
The new section 124A(6) states: ‘harm means physical harm that is serious harm’, and section 1A of the Criminal Code defines ‘physical harm’. I am advised that something like unconsciousness, physical harm that is serious harm, and certainly unconsciousness is part of that, would be included because Part 1 Section 1 of the Criminal Code says:
In response to the submissions we received from various groups, particularly women’s shelters and other shelters, we included that it would be a defence if someone was involved in planning to remove the victim from a serious and imminent threat and intended to report once the victim was removed from the threat. That is how the government responded to concerns that were put to it. If there is escape planning going on, rather than compromise that escape planning - because we are talking about someone who is under threat of serious physical harm or under imminent threat of domestic violence - I believe that is a sensible way to give some flexibility to this particular law.
If a report were made as soon as practical, a serious or imminent threat to someone’s life or safety may result. That is the scenario in a health clinic, possible in a remote area. The government has a policy of doing away with single nurse posts - there may be two left in the Territory - for a range of reasons. Even if it was a double nurse post - there may or may not be a police presence - there could be a threat of reprisal against a health professional or someone else, from either the perpetrator or their family, and they should have the flexibility to be able to make that report when it is safe to do so. It does not absolve them of the responsibility of making the report; it gives them the flexibility to make the report at the appropriate time.
The legislation is in response to a major problem in the Northern Territory. The government is not pretending that this is a magic silver bullet to solve the problem of domestic violence in the Northern Territory. That is why - and I am sure the Attorney-General and others will speak about this - $15m was allocated to education for a range of programs to address this issue. It is sending out a very positive and powerful message to the community that domestic violence is unacceptable.
In summary, the government acknowledges that there are great challenges in terms of this particular act and the government has considered them carefully. It has been courageous and audacious to move forward with this and send a clear message to the community. Some in the opposition have reservations, and I understand those reservations, but I ask the opposition to join with us in a bipartisan way …
Mr Elferink: We have.
Dr BURNS: Good, I welcome that from the member for Port Darwin. I am glad we are joined together in a bipartisan way to send a strong message out to the community of the Northern Territory that domestic violence is unacceptable.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: There are some relatively minor amendments to clean up; some housekeeping in relation to make corresponding laws to include repeal laws of another state or territory, or New Zealand, of those repeal laws provided for the equivalent to a domestic violence order. That was in response to comments by police that because of the legality there were difficulties in applying a breach of a domestic violence order under a previously repealed act or an act that was in existence in New Zealand. I believe that is a sensible amendment.
It is also clarifying the explanation of the domestic violence order to a defendant. Police felt there were elements which were cumbersome. It has expedited that on the basis of advice from police, while still giving some certainty to the perpetrator that their obligations under a domestic violence order will be explained to them in a meaningful and understandable manner. It is very important that people get the message. Police officers are trained to deliver those messages.
I have covered the main elements I wanted to cover in my offering to this debate. It has been a difficult road. It is not an easy subject and there are complexities. I thank members from this side for their support, and I thank members from the other side for their support for this very important bill. Their concerns are noted on this side of the House and the Attorney-General will no doubt speak about that. This is a government that has taken a whole range of steps in terms of domestic violence and we are prepared to take more; this is one of those major steps.
I thank members for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important bill a second time.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this important legislation – the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2008. This bill is linked to a key policy objective of my government: to put a halt to domestic violence. This is a historic day for the Northern Territory. We believe we are the first jurisdiction, around the world, that has gone as far as we have to make it mandatory for people to report domestic violence; if anyone is either a witness to it or believes that a person’s life is in imminent danger, or under threat of serious assault, to report it.
I wonder, as the debate has been unfolding and the prevalence of domestic violence in our community, why it has taken us so long. It has taken a long time to get to this point. It has been an intense debate, but if parliament is to really reflect the will of the people through its elected representatives, I believe everyone - every Territorian - would say that domestic violence is unacceptable; as all violence is unacceptable. It seems to me that this is a big step we are taking today, but it is a logical step and I am sure that it is a step that will be supported by all Territorians who think about this particular issue.
My government has zero tolerance to crime and domestic violence of any sort, but especially abhorrent crimes of violence by men against women and children. We have to do whatever we can to help break the cycle of domestic and family violence and protect women and children from violence. We will hear, and we have heard in debate today, some very personal experiences of domestic violence and how traumatic, damaging, and challenging the issue is to deal with in any family. I am fortunate to be able to stand here and say that - and I am fortunate - within my immediate family circumstance, we have had many problems within my extended family, but this particular problem is not amongst them. But, amongst friends and colleagues, I have been touched by this particular crime and have seen firsthand, as we all have, the absolute destruction that domestic violence and the fear of that repeated and ongoing violence has on families, and it is time to say enough is enough.
This bill, which creates a mandatory reporting law for abuse within a domestic relationship which causes serious physical harm, is further evidence of the government’s resolve. The Labor government has implemented numerous initiatives over the past years to highlight what domestic violence is, to get domestic violence out of the closet, to give victims confidence to report domestic violence, and to deal adequately with the perpetrators of this repugnant behaviour.
The Northern Territory Police is one of the agencies that have led the way on a number of fronts. Following a strategic research project, the NT Police implemented the inaugural Violent Crime Reduction Strategy in December 2004. This strategy provided for a comprehensive policing response, particularly to the insidious crimes committed within the context of domestic or family relationships, and has resulted in a significant change in the way police, and the broader community, view and relate to domestic violence. The policing response since the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy, otherwise known as the VCRS, was launched has seen a dramatic increase in the number of police-initiated domestic violence orders, and rigorous enforcement of domestic violence orders.
From the time the VCRS was implemented, there was a significant jump in the numbers of domestic violence-related crimes detected and reported. I have the statistics which I will articulate in this debate. We have the graphs, which have been produced by the police, relating to the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy 2008, and these graphs and statistics demonstrate that, since the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy was launched in 2004, there has been a significant increase in the reporting of domestic violence and assaults, and it is those numbers that have actually driven up the statistics in regards to violence and violent crimes in the Northern Territory.
We have had the debate in this House over and over again, when the opposition joyfully and gleefully grabs hold of every Justice quarterly crime report where there has been another spike in crimes of violence. They have tried to use those numbers to initiate and whip up fear in the community that violent crime is out of control in the Northern Territory, that it is increasing, and people are to be fearful of walking the dog at night or walking along the beach, because violent crime is out of control, as demonstrated by the figures that they hold up.
I have asserted that those figures are not good news, but what they do show is that women have increased confidence to report, and they are reporting acts of domestic violence in numbers that have never been seen before in the Northern Territory. Women have the confidence that the police will follow up, the police will ensure that domestic violence orders are adhered to and, if not, there are dedicated police officers to breach those orders.
The tragedy of the increase in crime statistics is that for so long in the Northern Territory this was a crime hidden under the table, behind closed doors. Police did not have a focus on it; it was part of the culture of: ‘it is all within the family, it has nothing to do with us’. The terror and horror of domestic violence was hidden behind closed doors, swept under the carpet.
The initiation of this police response in 2004 started to lift the lid on what is happening, tragically, across the Northern Territory. I will give you some numbers. The police PROMIS system recorded 2012 domestic violence-related offences in the year the VCRS was launched which, after implementation, jumped to 2795 the following year, with slight increases thereafter. That is a 25% increase in one year of people reporting, once the VCRS was launched. In one year, there were not 25% more assaults taking place; it was the fact that people had the confidence to report them.
Similarly, there was a significant increase in the number of police-initiated domestic violence orders, from 1355, at the time the VCRS was launched, to 2276 the following year, and increasing to 2594 in the 2007-08 period. That is around – again, mental arithmetic very quickly - a 70% increase in one year of police-initiated domestic violence orders. That is not that there were 70% more domestic violence incidents occurring that year in the Northern Territory; it was that the police had resources dedicated to this particular crime, and women had the confidence to report.
This increase in the detection and recording of domestic violence-related offences has represented the corresponding increase in assault statistics against the person. Thankfully, we saw a 13% fall in assaults in the September 2008 quarter and, within that total, of 4% in domestic violence assaults. For the 12 months ending September 2008, domestic violence-related assaults declined to 51% of assaults, compared to 55% for the corresponding period ending September 2007. I am advised that, for the 2007-08 financial year, 2594 domestic violence orders were initiated by police and, for the current financial year July to December, 527 domestic violence orders were initiated by police. This is a 9.6% decrease compared to the same period in 2007-08. I am also advised that 1848 offences were recorded for failing to comply with domestic violence orders in 2007-08, whilst for the current financial year, 833 offences were reported - a 9.8% decrease compared to the same time in 2007-08.
However, whilst the statistics appear to suggest the situation is improving, one domestic violence assault is one too many, and we do have to do more to stop these crimes. The numbers are horrendous, even though there is a slight decrease; and quarter by quarter you have to be very careful with establishing those numbers as a trend. But around 2800 reported domestic violence assaults every year across the Northern Territory, is 2800 tragic cases of trauma, hurt, and total family dysfunction that are being reported to police and much more goes unreported. There is still a long way to go.
The intense focus by police in this area is helping to shift attitudes within our community. It has led to increasing confidence by some victims to report crimes that previously have remained unreported. Victims of domestic violence are learning that police have a zero tolerance to this crime, and they will receive the support and protection they rightfully deserve when they bring it to the attention of the police. We can always do more. The Territory Police recently reviewed the VCRS and, on White Ribbon Day, 25 November 2008, launched the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy 2008, which I have here. This invigorated strategy is building upon the considerable efforts made to date in this area. Through the new DVO arrests, police aim to use problem-solving approaches to deter offending: disrupt the cycle of violence and minimise harm through early intervention and prevention; provide high quality and timely service delivery to prevent and minimise harm; investigate offences; and prosecute offenders.
This new VCRS broadens efforts to strengthen relationships between police and key stakeholders to further address the underlying issues of violent crime. As part of the VCRS, dedicated Domestic Violence Prevention Units were established in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs. Members within these units are responsible for assisting victims and referring them to specialist service providers. Additionally, these units target recidivist offenders, ensure that domestic violence orders are obtained, where appropriate, and that offenders are complying with orders.
I believe I have spoken of this in the House before as Police minister, and I have been Police minister on and off for quite a few years now. One awful moment, in my time as Police minister, was sitting down with the members from the Domestic Violence Unit in Alice Springs Police Station; I spent an hour with the team down there. Two of the women who were on that team of police officers in Alice Springs, took me through what, I have to say, is one of the most horrific photo albums that I have ever seen in my life. It really shocks me to the core that men can do this to women; it shocked me to the core. Within my own family circles this, to my knowledge, has never been an issue we have had to deal with, but to see page after page, photo after photo, of women’s faces and bodies being beaten to a pulp, black and blue, bruising which was horrendous, broken bones, it really was traumatising.
It was at that moment - the member for Arafura has been passionate in her advocacy for this in Cabinet over many years; and we had the usual debates in Cabinet that happened in the community, about if it would deter people from presenting to health clinics and hospitals, we had the same debate - when I saw those photos, that I said no, this cannot continue. We have to send very strong signals that this is everyone’s responsibility; people are being viciously and violently assaulted. I asked those two policewomen, who were taking me through that photo album, how, personally, they would deal with this. How do you go home to your families, having dealt with some of the issues you have been dealing with?
Even though it is very traumatic work they do, they were absolutely committed to it; absolutely committed to working to protect these women and better their lives and to see the perpetrators of these horrific assaults brought before the courts. They were very dedicated police officers. I commend all our officers who work in these domestic violence units, because they are very traumatic issues they deal with day after day after day. They do a very difficult and disturbing job.
A new Violent Crime Policy Section has also being established within Police. This section has responsibility for informing policy development, conducting quality assurance processes with regard to police response to incidents of violence, and implementing initiatives flowing from the recent review to further enhance effectiveness and efficiency in preventing and responding to incidents of violence. I assure all members, and the broader community, that all calls received by police, where violence is alleged to be occurring, are graded as call grade one, for immediate police response.
Police view domestic violence and calls for assistance as a high priority. With the passage of this legislation, when police receive a report the police officers will ensure reasonable steps are taken to investigate the report. Whilst more victims are having the confidence to report domestic violence, there are many cases that still go undetected, where the victim and, on occasion, witnesses do not report the crime. We have to lift the shroud of silence that sometimes surrounds these crimes. That is what they are - they are abhorrent crimes.
On occasion people who could make reports are frightened to do so possibly due to fear of retribution, or for whatever reason. The bill provides protection by ensuring that any person who, in good faith, makes a report to a police officer cannot be held criminally or civilly liable or in breach of any professional code of conduct.
This is a seminal debate. It is like 20 years ago when parliaments around Australia legislated for mandatory reporting of child abuse. We all accept that legislation as absolutely vital legislation in our society. I am very confident this legislation will stand the test of time and will be seen around Australia and, potentially, around the world, as groundbreaking legislation.
I table, for members interested in this debate, a copy of the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy 2008 by the police and signed off by the Commissioner. I say to the Commissioner, and put this on the public record, that I was the minister in 2004 and I know the Commissioner’s absolute commitment to improving the way police deal with domestic violence by establishing this Violent Crime Reduction Strategy. He knew that the culture had to change within the Northern Territory Police Force in terms of dealing with domestic violence; he knew their response had to be taken to a much higher level to deal with this as a very serious crime. It was the Police Commissioner’s total commitment to this that has seen, I believe, our police force leading Australia in terms of policing of domestic violence.
The graphs are very telling. I hope they end the nonsensical debates we have in this House regarding violent crime figures and the nature of violent crime in the Northern Territory. If the opposition does not understand numbers, they should be able to read a graph: when a graph is going upwards in a particular category that is the reason for these reports of violent crime increasing. You can see all these graphs have significant increases: in reported domestic violence, in police-initiated domestic violence orders, in police detected breaches of domestic violence orders, and alcohol-related domestic violence offences against a person.
All of these reported offences are significantly up from 2004 when this strategy was initiated. Those increases in violent crime statistics have nothing to do with increases in other categories of violent crime and everything to do with increases in reports of domestic violence. The figures are there in the graphs and if we are ever to have informed debate in this House about violent crime, the answers to those statistics are in these graphs. I commend everyone who is speaking in support of this bill because it is groundbreaking.
I conclude on the comments from the member for Katherine, an ex-police officer. I believe police will be able to cater for any increase in reports. There is a commitment from our government, that if there needs to be increased police resources, as a result of this legislation leading to a massive increase in the number of calls for support, then we will do everything we can to meet that need. But, to take the obverse point of view that it would put too much pressure on police, therefore you should not do it, is to deny those women, who are suffering domestic violence, the confidence they deserve in order to report it.
If you turn his view around obversely, that because it is going to mean more work for police therefore you should not do anything, I do not support that view at all. At the end of the day, human beings are very severely and significantly affected, assaulted and, for our Territory kids, who grow up in households where they have to witness firsthand domestic violence, I am sure we all want better for our children in the Northern Territory, as well.
I commend the minister for bringing forward this legislation. I commend my colleague, the member for Arafura, in particular, who has had the passion to bring this forward, time and again through Cabinet, to the point where we are today, introducing legislation that is groundbreaking. It is big, it is brave, it is bold, and it is the right thing to do.
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Policy): Madam Speaker, I support this bill and I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister for bringing this bill forward.
I believe it is a really important and touching subject for any politician, or anyone, to be talking about. I am so grateful that this government has committed an additional $15m over four years and that this government has the foresight to see that there needs to be continuous education strategies to make sure that, as the Chief Minister said, it is not in anyone’s culture to go and kill someone. It is not in anyone’s culture to go and harm someone or hurt someone - and I can tell you that it is not in Indigenous culture. No where in our culture have I heard old people say that it is culturally appropriate to bash your woman.
I am so glad to see this government committed to more crisis accommodation and increased domestic violence counselling services, because it is really about counselling victims. We are not just talking about the trauma of these victims - the bruises on their bodies or their bodies in morgues that you have to bury - but it is also important to campaign; to continuously educate the perpetrators and the younger generation of people who might perpetrate. The younger people see it happening in their homes everyday, so they think it is normal behaviour because they see their dad flogging their mum every night.
I put it to this House a couple of months ago when I was talking on domestic violence, that you get emotional when you talk about these things. The first time I saw it was when my dad smashed my mum’s nose and my mum had to return to Alice Springs Hospital, and I had to look after my five-year-old brother. We all want what is good for our children, and for our children to grow up not knowing, not feeling the pain of what they see happening to their mother. My mum still does not have that nose because of what happened. Medical services in those days were not as good as they are now, and she lives with that for the rest of her life.
We live with the pain we felt as children. It gets passed on from generation to generation. This bill will stop that from happening, along with education strategies and crisis accommodation strategies. We cannot sit in this House, as human beings, and say that something as good as this, which is setting a benchmark for women and children in the Northern Territory, has holes in it. That is what I am hearing a lot of people say, but these people are not victims.
I want to tell you a story from a victim’s point of view. As parents, we all leave our houses and we work hard in order to leave things for our children, so our children have better things than we had. The children who grow up in homes like the ones I am talking about carry the pain of their parents. The only time we find space to think, if you have children, is when you are breastfeeding. That is your time out to think: ‘What have I done? Do I really deserve this? Do I deserve to have a gun put to my head and asked if I have ever played Russian roulette? Do I deserve to be dragged in winter, stark naked, and have cold water poured over me when I am carrying a child? Do I deserve to lock my two children inside the house in order to save myself?’ That lives with you for the rest of your life - it does.
There is nothing you can do. If you live with someone for 35 years, 50 years, 20 years, or 17 years, the pain does not leave you. You can be divorced and separated for 10 years; the pain does not leave you. It plays on your mind that you had to lock your two children inside the house and run to save your life; and the kilometre that you ran felt like 100 km. It was lucky that the police cells were open that night, so that someone could lock themselves inside the cell without the police knowing they were in there, and asked the police to please go and pick up their children.
It is also the other victims in Aboriginal communities. You hide the bruises; you wear long sleeves so that no one notices. The reason you keep on doing that, the longer you stay inside that relationship, is because you want to make sure that your children have a father. That is the excuse that victims have. You might think it is easy for someone to report it to the nurse or to the police, but it is not. You always come up with excuses, or the relationship, or the perpetrator comes up with an excuse. Usually, it is: ‘I love you’ - all forgotten, until the next day. These are real tragedies that victims have to put up with.
I heard certain people speaking inside this House, in my view, speaking with a false tongue about saving and about making the law tougher for perpetrators. For the victims, when you look at those people, I always think back to a quote I have: ‘like a wolf in sheep’s clothing’, pretending they are the good things, but really behind what they say, is not what you see. There are tragedies, and it goes on, and you hand it down from generation to generation. I know that the children also suffer abuse, but unlike their mother, they picked it up very early and got out of the relationship very early, in a couple of years. Through the strength you build up as an individual you make yourself a survivor – you really do.
Like I said, the only spare time you have is when you have time to lay in bed and breastfeed your child. You hope that child will continue to stay awake and drink the milk, so there is not the opportunity for you to get another hiding. Even if you have friends who you want to talk to about these problems, it is really hard. You can have police officers and nurses who are your mates, but it is that attitude, it is not other people’s business, it is your business, you deal with it.
This legislation, and the fact that this government, over four years, is putting in $15m, is something that I commend to this House. We need to have a look at ourselves internally, in our hearts and minds and our souls, and say that we are doing this to save the lives of women and children. We do not want our children, in another 20 years’ time, to be standing inside this House talking about the same things that we are talking about. If I had the opportunity to talk about this issue again in 20 years’ time, the pain would still be there. The pain was there when it happened; the pain will still be there - you cannot get rid of it.
It does not matter if you report it and that person gets locked up in gaol, the pain is still there; you feel it every day. Talking about things like that just makes it harder; and I guess it makes you a hard person as well. It makes you into a survivor. If you can come through something like that, it does, it really makes you turn into a really hard person, because you put a shell around yourself, you are defensive and you do not want anyone else to touch you.
I commend this bill to the House.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, like colleagues on both sides of the House, I believe it is important that I contribute to this debate. I acknowledge the members for Macdonnell and Arnhem for sharing difficult and personal stories on this debate. It takes a lot of courage.
I am a child of a Warlpiri woman and a Mara/ Ngulikan man. My grandparents were members of the Stolen Generations. While I am aware of the massive dislocation in Aboriginal society which has occurred in the years since European settlement, I am not aware, and I do not believe, that domestic violence is a part of our Aboriginal culture. Domestic violence occurs within Aboriginal families just as it occurs within non-Aboriginal families. In both cases it is a crime. I am very proud to be part of the government which is determined to tackle this crime head-on.
To that end, the Northern Territory Police launched its Violent Crime Reduction Strategy, and it has also restructured its domestic units in Darwin and Alice Springs. It has also set up new Domestic and Personal Violence Protection Units in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, and Tennant Creek. One of the key factors that lies behind domestic violence is alcohol abuse. This is not an issue that traditional Aboriginal society had to deal with, but one this government is determined to address, along with our community.
There has been much debate in Alice Springs about the dry town legislation, which some people oppose on ideological grounds, and others say it is not working. I was interested to read a Letter to the Editor of the Centralian Advocate last week from Dr John Boffa, a spokesman for the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition. It was one of the longest letters I have ever seen published in a newspaper, around 1500 words long, which goes to show how important the issue is in the opinion of the editor of the Centralian Advocate. It starts off with Dr Boffa stating and I quote:
This government is determined to tackle alcohol abuse and alcohol-related crime head-on. It is also a government that believes it is the responsibility of every member of our community to help break the cycle of domestic and family violence. I was very pleased to see the gesture made by both the Adelaide Crows and Aboriginal All Stars before their game at Marrara Oval recently.
A member: Hear, hear!
Mr HAMPTON: I join my colleague, the member for Arnhem, in congratulating the men from Santa Teresa or Ltyentye Apurte for travelling all the way up to show their support for this program. The players linked arms to show their support for the government’s program to tackle domestic violence. I also pay tribute to those great Territorian men on the field, who played for the All Stars, namely: Andrew McLeod, Cameron and Mathew Stokes, Cyril Rioli, Marlon, Daniel and Steven Motlop, Shaun Burgoyne, Aaron Davey, Raphael Clarke, Richard Tambling, Matt Campbell, Anthony Corrie, Austin Wonaeamirri and Nathan Djerrkura.
A member: Hear, hear!
Mr HAMPTON: Meanwhile, in Central Australia, the Department of Health and Families, in conjunction with Centacare and AFL NT, has produced this calendar which the member for Arnhem has shown us so proudly.
Five of the 12 teams featured live within my electorate of Stuart. I place on the record what the teams have to say about domestic violence. The Anmatjere Football Club says: ‘Men can make families feel safe’. The Lajamanu Football Club says: ‘All men have a responsibility to protect their families’. The Ti Tree Roosters say: ‘Winning in life is being strong for our women and children’. The Yuendumu Magpies say: ‘Give child abuse the boot’. The Yuendumu Football Club says: ‘Weekend warriors for football and life time warriors for our families’.
I congratulate all of those football teams in Central Australia for standing up and being counted in this campaign against domestic violence. Many people associate domestic violence with spousal abuse, but it can go much wider than that. It may occur between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, great-grandparents and great-grandchildren. It may occur between siblings, or between children and their parents-in-law or step-parents.
In fact, domestic relationships may involve very extended families including relatives according to Aboriginal tradition, or contemporary social practice. This is important because we are all aware that traditional family models are dwindling throughout our society, particularly in Indigenous communities. This is compounded in Aboriginal society by the massive reduction of male role models.
Last year, hundreds of Aboriginal men gathered at Ross River for the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress Male Health Summit. I congratulate John Liddle, the Male Health Manager at Congress for his work in organising the summit. At the end of the summit the delegates issued a statement, and I wish to read out the statement as follows:
The statement goes on to say:
A very strong and passionate statement and, no doubt, as the member for Arnhem has said, we cannot do it alone; women cannot do it alone, it needs men to support them and to acknowledge the wrongs. I have no doubt that all of us in this Assembly want to see a safer Northern Territory community, and I am very pleased to support this bill.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, we all reject the scourge of domestic violence and the blight on our community. The question is: what to do about it? This government has taken the courageous step of introducing world-leading legislation that demands mandatory reporting of violent domestic assault. It is doing it because it is the right thing to do. The government knows it will be difficult to do, but knows it has to do something about the high levels of assault that occur.
Domestic violence, as we have heard, is totally unacceptable, and this government is showing strong leadership. The minister has shown incredible leadership and has acknowledged a whole team of people who have worked on this legislation and its amendment, who have also shown great leadership. Domestic violence is a community problem, and therefore needs a community response. As we have heard with great emotion, domestic violence is a hidden crime; hidden in relation to the perpetrator and a hidden crime in relation to the victim.
I can remember when the mandatory reporting of child abuse was brought into the Northern Territory parliament; it was passed, and there were similar debates and reservations in the community. It was a matter of such importance that from that day on I have counselled many teachers about the nature of mandatory reporting and how important it is in terms of changing community attitudes, of making people aware, of protecting people in our community and doing the right thing. I am proud to stand up and say that this government is introducing the same legislation towards domestic violence and mandatory reporting. It is a crime and we have to end the silence; we have to send the message, and this legislation sends the message. It not only protects the victims but it also protects the people who report.
This legislation also supports the NT Police. The NT Police have been very proactive in targeting domestic violence, in targeting repeat offenders, and in supporting repeat victims via the Domestic and Personal Violence Protection Units. I know personally the officer-in-charge of this unit in Tennant Creek, and I have witnessed that officer’s passion in this field. I have celebrated the community’s desire to rid the Northern Territory of this crime and to support the police in whatever way we can. As the Chief Minister said, it is not an issue of worrying about numbers and logistics; it is making it mandatory, getting it out there and raising awareness.
I was very proud to hear this government’s strategy of communicating, not only the changes to this important legislation, but to communicate to our community that domestic violence is not acceptable, that the government has enacted legislation to deal with this unacceptable situation, and the very important part of making people aware of what domestic violence really is. We are talking about changing inappropriate behaviour in our community. I celebrate the day when our children make the very clear decision, through new awareness of domestic violence, that it is a totally unacceptable situation in our society.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill. I have listened for some hours to passionate debate, with contributions from people with many different perspectives from law enforcement, justice, schoolteachers, and personal anecdotes - some very personal anecdotes. When I was advised last year of this bill coming up, I had some reservations about it. It was probably hinting on the fear factor that the member for Nelson talked about: what the implications would be for people on communities – especially on remote communities - regarding payback. I wondered if there was some other mechanism by which we could deal with it.
However, I have arrived at a position today that I know that this bill is the right way to go; it is the right thing to do. It has to be zero tolerance. As the member for Barkly said, if we have mandatory reporting for children, then we need to extend that to women and children who are at serious risk and on the receiving end of some horrendous crimes which we read about and hear about so frequently.
The day before this bill was introduced to the House, I attended a White Ribbon Day breakfast marking the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I know several members also attended, and I remember seeing the member for Katherine there. This is an issue that is not just a concern of women, but also men, everyone – as it should be. It was hosted by Darwin’s Zonta Club. The guest speaker was Major General David Chalmers, from the Australian Army, who headed up the federal government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response, or the intervention.
There are many things about the intervention which I do not like, not the least of which was the way it was launched. However, among the many issues highlighted through the intervention, apart from poor health, education and housing conditions, was the raft of appalling social issues. Major General Chalmers, in his speech at this breakfast, highlighted the awful but accepted culture of violence against women and children. I was shocked and disturbed to hear him say in his speech that Indigenous women are 45 times more likely to be the victims of assault than non-Indigenous women. Actually, there was a complete element of disbelief; I thought I must have misheard or there was a typo in his speech. How could it possibly be that Indigenous women are 45 times more likely to be the victims of assault than non-Indigenous women?
Later that day, I prepared my weekly column for Nhulunbuy’s local newspaper, the Arafura Times, and e-mailed it through to the Editor, Rod Neil. In my column, I mentioned that I had attended this breakfast, and I wrote about the statistics and how they show that, in Australia, one in 20 women are victims of random violence, and more than a third of woman have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual assault from the age of 15. I also included the statistic I heard that morning from Major General Chalmers, that Indigenous women are 45 times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be victims of domestic violence. I went on to say that as a community we could no longer tolerate this, and that this is why the Northern Territory government was introducing a bill which would see mandatory reporting of domestic and family violence.
It obviously ate away at me during the day, because later in the day I checked the e-mail sent that morning, and I sent a revised draft of my column asking the editor to remove the reference to Indigenous women being 45 times more likely to be assaulted than non-Indigenous women. I guess I did that because I was afraid that it would, on one hand, be a source of great shame and that some of my Yolngu constituents would feel indignant, and maybe even challenge that figure, about this very sensitive issue; but also that it would really outrage people who would demand to know what the government was doing to address domestic and family violence, and that we could actually have these sort of statistics. I guess, also, I did not want to give my non-Indigenous constituents some statistics to hide behind and be in denial that domestic and family violence is only an Indigenous issue, because we all know for a fact that it is not, and I know that from the various roles I have had in Nhulunbuy.
Having spent most of my adult life in the Territory, I have personally, like every other person here, seen and heard of some cases of abuse which, under this legislation, I would be obliged to notify under mandatory reporting. In my very early schoolteaching years, I recall an incident with one of my students, which was a bit of a wake-up call for me as a new high schoolteacher. He was a nice enough kid; a bit of a loner, a little scruffy, disinclined at school and he rarely completed all his work, probably because for the most part it was beyond him. With hindsight, my teacher training back in the 1980s was quite deficient in teaching me the stuff that I really needed to know about teaching young kids.
I knew a lot about literature and deconstructing text, and various methods for teaching different periods of history; how to operate different kinds of equipment; how to assess a classroom when I walked in at the start of the day – did I need to open a window for fresh air or put a heater on. But no one really prepared me for what I needed to know to be able to deal with a whole range of social issues that impact on kids’ lives.
I had this kid in my class one particular day, and I can still picture him; I cannot remember his surname, but I remember his first name. He and I had a bit of a flare-up. I cannot remember what it was over, but he threw every four letter word under the sun at me; I did not feel physically threatened, but he certainly let fly with the language. He tossed over a couple of chairs and stormed out of the classroom. I was outraged and I was really indignant because I was in charge of that class and these kids had no right to speak to me like that, because I was the teacher. I followed the school’s disciplinary process and insisted that this boy be suspended.
I remember talking soon after the incident with the Assistant Principal, who basically counselled me to reconsider my stance, and I did not hesitate as soon as I learnt more about this young boy’s background. He would have been about 14 or 15. He had an alcoholic father, a history of domestic violence, and this young person would undoubtedly be on the receiving end of a severe flogging if he was suspended from school. While this boy was protected to a degree by the school because they had knowledge of his home situation and by mandatory reporting with regards to children, it always stuck in my head that tacit acceptance of things we know are not right is simply not to be endured.
I agree with the point made by my colleague, the member for Arafura, that when a woman is being abused, there is probably fair ground to think that there might be a child being abused as well. Now, with hindsight about that particular young boy, I wonder if it might have been the same situation for his mother.
I share another quick story. About a year ago I attended a training session at Rio Tinto Alcan. It was a burns awareness session and it was about first aid treatment for burns. The work environment at the refinery is one where there are many chemicals and so there is a risk of chemical and thermal burns. The presenter was a clinical nurse specialist from the Royal Darwin Hospital’s burns unit. It was an extremely informative, graphic and, at times, a shocking presentation detailing different injuries resulting from burns and how each of those different burns needs to be treated. I was in a room mainly with men and all of us cringed, covered our eyes at times, and shook our heads on hearing how some of these injuries had come about. Many of these were obviously domestic violence cases and quite plainly, there was a sub-agenda to the presentation to show, educate and even shock us into recognising the reality of domestic violence.
One of the most awful and dreadful photos - not unlike what the Chief Minister talked about when he was in Alice Springs at the police station looking through an album of photos - related to a woman who had presented at the Royal Darwin Hospital with terrible scalding burns. She had an abusive partner who, in a domestic dispute, poured a kettle full of boiling water over her head. This was after she had been beaten, as well. When she fled to the shower for cold water, he followed her with another kettle full of boiling water which he poured over her. He turned off the cold water tap in the shower and turned on the hot water tap.
I cannot remember how that woman made it to Accident and Emergency at the Royal Darwin Hospital and into the burns unit. Her head had to be shaved and revealed a mass of old scars. Further investigations and X-rays revealed fractures and broken bones which had healed; all hidden reminders of cumulative beatings and abuse sustained over a period of time.
Stories like this, and stories I have heard from the members for Arnhem, Macdonnell and Arafura, which came to the fore in the ABC interview on 15 May 2006 with Dr Nanette Rogers, which the member for Araluen reminded us of.
If I can just backtrack for a moment to hospitals and the excellent care that doctors and nurses provide. There is another story which I would like to share. About a year ago a friend of mine had a really nasty fall from her bicycle; she was not wearing her helmet. She hit the pavement and sustained terrible injuries to her face – lots of cuts and lost a couple of teeth. Her injuries were so bad she was medivaced to the Royal Darwin Hospital where she was stitched up, and came home a few days later.
When I saw her she looked quite shocking. Her face was really swollen and she had something like 80 stitches in her face. When I was commiserating with her she said to me how fortunate she was - I cannot remember the name of the doctor who sutured her face - but she said the doctors at Royal Darwin Hospital are presented with so many cases of women who are victims of domestic violence, who have had glasses smashed in their face, that they have become very adept at providing this sort of service. It is a sad indictment that we have these skilled doctors in our hospitals because they have had so much practice at fixing up broken bodies and smashed faces.
Such awful and serious cases as this poor woman who was doused with boiling water, present at hospitals - if they are fortunate enough to get to hospital - are reported, and the perpetrators are prosecuted. I will talk in a moment about the Corrections system and what we need to do to break that cycle of violence amongst perpetrators. But some acts of domestic violence are far more subtle than that, where the scars are not so obvious and are much more psychological than physical.
Apart from the bill incorporating and recognising the range of physical and menacing abuse, one of the key aspects this bill introduces, and I quote from the minister’s second reading speech:
I have seen firsthand in my town this kind of abuse amongst Indigenous but, especially, non-Indigenous women. I welcome that the bill will offer that protection and recourse. In a town like Nhulunbuy, which is surprising to some people, given that there are so many people who make such good money, yet, as someone has already said, there are no boundaries about which class, whether you are Indigenous or non-Indigenous, or how much money you make. Domestic violence is an insidious thing which goes right across all those boundaries. In Nhulunbuy we are isolated for nearly six months of the year when rivers rise - a number of other small and remote communities are like that as well – and for a woman, or a woman and children, there is no means of escape.
There is nowhere to go if an abusive partner holds the keys to the car and holds access to the bank account. I know women who have been in this situation. The only place they can go to is a friend’s place or to the crisis accommodation centre which, most nights of the week, is full of women and children escaping domestic violence.
This raises the point about having adequate resources to support what will follow from the bill being passed by this Assembly. I welcome the news from the Minister for Children and Families that $15m has been earmarked for resources. Resources like crisis accommodation and safe houses, counselling services and, of course, a communication campaign that delivers and hammers home the important messages to people.
I acknowledge that the Northern Territory government is opening 17 new safe houses around the Territory. The first of these was opened very recently by the member for Arnhem.
If we are trying to support women and children escaping violence and abuse, they need somewhere to go. The flip side of that is - this is the view of a friend of mine who has worked in the area of crisis accommodation for a number of years - why should it be the victim, often with her children, who has to leave their community? Why can it not be the perpetrator?
This brings us to the next issue, also about resourcing. When perpetrators are successfully prosecuted they will invariably serve a prison sentence, but we need to have in place workable and outcome-driven rehabilitation programs for all domestic violence offenders. Currently, we have a huge number of repeat offenders – a terrible cycle of violence – a revolving door in Corrections facilities, which too often ends only when some longsuffering victim eventually receives injuries which are fatal, and then the perpetrator simply moves on to the next victim.
I take heart from the announcements last week about a new direction for Corrections and the commitment to provide appropriate training and education programs which will aim to provide rehabilitation for offenders and recidivist offenders in the area of domestic and family violence.
We also need to address alcohol abuse, and a number of members have also talked about this. The vast majority of the domestic and family violence we see and hear about is directly linked to alcohol. I do not know what happens in other jurisdictions, but the fact that we have a minister responsible for Alcohol Policy is a sad indictment of just how bad things are. We cannot possibly hope to tackle domestic and family violence without also addressing alcohol abuse and all of the antisocial problems that go with it.
We have to address bringing about attitudinal change at the community and individual level; domestic violence is not normal behaviour and it is not accepted behaviour.
I applaud the wearing of white ribbons to indicate support for victims of domestic violence and I recognise the importance of awareness-raising campaigns and the role they play in bringing about attitudinal change. But there has to be more than this to turn this dreadful problem around.
I believe this bill will make people responsible, and the onus will be on them to report domestic and family violence.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank all members of the Assembly for their contribution to the debate on this amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Act.
I thank the opposition for its support, it has raised issues with its qualified support and I will respond to those issues. I understand that it intends to take this debate into committee. No? Sorry, I was advised we were going to committee, so I was going to go into more detail in committee.
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay. I will go into more detail now. That is fine.
This legislation should never be seen in isolation of the significant work this government has embarked upon to tackle domestic and family violence in our community. We have heard speaker upon speaker in today’s debate talk about the horrendous numbers of incidents of domestic and family violence across the Territory community; and we know that Indigenous Territorians are overrepresented in violence in the family home.
That is why we have heard such impassioned discussion and debate here today, particularly from members of the Chamber who come from Indigenous families, who have witnessed firsthand the domestic and family violence that this legislation aims to focus on and, aims to send a clarion call to the broader community, that it is everyone’s responsibility to report domestic violence.
I know there is an issue about where the government has decided to frame mandatory reporting around serious harm, and I will address that in my response. Critical to the government’s action is the $15m commitment to tackle - across the spectrum of people who work within the area, whether it be the victims or the perpetrators – at a grassroots level, to try to prevent violence of this nature in the first instance. However, if violence of this nature occurs, then put additional support where it counts the most.
$6m will be provided for additional crisis accommodation services; $3m for a communication and education awareness campaign which will roll-out across the Territory, focusing the campaign in many Indigenous languages, if not all of them - there are probably about 15 core languages that will be identified, but that work will be undertaken by the Minister for Families and Children - there is $3.5m for expanding counselling services; and a $2.5m commitment for extra beds in crisis accommodation and upgrades to crisis accommodation shelters.
The government has never pretended this legislation, in itself, is the answer to combating the insidious level of violence in our community in the context of domestic and family settings which, as we have heard in debate, is significantly and primarily against women with children victims caught up in domestic and family violence. That is not to say there are not male victims; of course, there are and this legislation is not gender-specific. However, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the victims are women, and women in the most vulnerable of circumstances, often in regional and remote areas, where it is difficult to get the extensive support and services they need.
Fundamentally, I am the Attorney-General carrying this bill through passage, but this is not my work. I am not going to stand and claim it as my work. I believe this is a body of work of strong women of the Territory, strong women who have spoken up consistently and repeatedly and said: more has to be done to stop the violence being perpetrated against the women of the Territory. Those women are both Indigenous and non-Indigenous women. Those women are leaders in our community: they are lawyers, they are workers in the field of domestic violence, they are politicians in this Chamber, and they are the victims who, through strength, wanted to be heard.
I am very proud to have witnessed the debate that has occurred in my government, and I recall the large amount of work the former Attorney-General and member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, undertook to bring forward contemporary legislation tackling domestic and family violence. This is an amendment to that contemporary legislation and should be seen in the context of contemporary legislation which provides offences to the broad range of harms that are domestic and family violence. I know that during the debates and discussions at the time, the then Attorney-General was challenged by the voices of women; non-Indigenous and Indigenous, leaders in our community, but also the quiet, gentle victims, and they challenged him to think about whether we could have mandatory reporting of domestic violence.
He took up the challenge, and he tasked the Department of Justice to undertake a further discussion on this issue, which has led to this legislation in the House. Taking up the challenge, when the member for Nhulunbuy left the role of Attorney-General, was the member for Arafura. She was an impassioned champion of the pursuit by government to adopt a policy that would introduce mandatory reporting. She was joined and supported, I am proud to say, by the new Chief Minister who, at the most senior level of the government, threw his support behind a cause which had primarily, before the intervention of the former member for Nhulunbuy, been just a women’s issue, just pursued by women, but we started to see the men in government step up.
Another man I want to thank is Charlie King, who has doggedly, over the years, pursued and continues to pour so much time and effort into this issue and never let it go. He is to be commended for his pursuit, in every undertaking, of protection for women and children. He is an absolute champion of mandatory reporting and has been a huge supporter.
The journey to today has not just been the significant effort of those leaders; the quiet women who were victims, and the men who joined to support the women in their pursuit of this, those women sit on both sides of this Chamber, it has also been an enormous effort and a challenge to people working in the Department of Justice to try to construct something that is world-first. We know Tasmania made an attempt to look at the professionals who doubt in the sector, in terms of mandatory reporting, and they passed legislation, but it has never been enacted; it has never been implemented.
In the United States, there are five jurisdictions which have legislation for mandatory reporting in this area, but it only deals with professionals reporting. No one has ever attempted to tackle the universal requirement of mandatory reporting that this parliament will be passing today. It was incredibly difficult work for the Department of Justice to undertake, but they undertook it diligently. The Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services and the Department of Health and Families also have staff who have committed many hours working on this trying to find a way to make this legislation workable. We did not want it to be lip service, as the member for Katherine alleged. We did not want it to be window dressing, simply a political stunt. We want this to work. We want it to change the attitude in our community towards accepting that the violence being perpetrated, primarily on women, is someone else’s issue; we do not have to report it.
We genuinely, at the heart of this, want to change that. We went through a very lengthy process. We went through many versions, looked at much advice, and detailed work across Police, Fire and Emergency Services into the workability aspects, because it comes down to the police in terms of the operational aspects; Justice because of the cost structures of legislation and the court systems and how it would all work; and Health and Families, which is at the coalface of seeing the victims. We knew that nurses in remote clinics would be put in difficult circumstances because of this mandatory reporting requirement.
During the consultation phases we drew out all the concerns, we heard listed by the member for Katherine and the concerns about the workability of it. Would it indeed prevent victims from seeking help? Because that was always an argument led very strongly in the debate about the introduction of mandatory reporting.
My colleagues in the government worked through every argument put forward and every barrier presented, to doggedly pursue the introduction of this legislation under the former Attorney-General, the member for Johnston. He was a thorough man and he went thoroughly over what we were proposing to construct, so that we reached a point of workability and so that we are introducing something that we can say we believe is designed to bring forward a change of attitude in our community, and where we are clearly saying: if you see serious harm being perpetrated against a woman, then you are required, when this law passes and is enacted, to report it or you are in breach of the law of the Territory. It carries a maximum fine of $22 000. It does not carry imprisonment, but it does carry that maximum fine of $22000.
In hearing all the debates and discussion, I felt that I had to identify the path that brought us here, and there are many other aspects of that path. The men’s groups which have been forming across the Territory, under the funding and support of the department of Families and under the leadership of Charlie King, who have been dealing with this issue of violence perpetrated against woman across the Territory. We know that violence is significantly perpetrated against Indigenous women and the Minister for Children and Families recognises that to truly turn the tide of that violence there must be a community response. It cannot just be government – it has to be a community response. We have had the responsibility to provide protections in the law, which are the reforms undertaken for the Domestic and Family Violence Act; then a further clarion call to say: you must report.
We will live in a regime of: you must report, regardless of who you are; it is universal. You do not have to be a health worker professional or a teacher. Whatever you do, whoever you are in the Territory, you must report. It is a bold step being taken in the Territory, as the Chief Minister has outlined, but because violence is so prevalent in our community, we must take this step. None of us can say, absolutely, hand-on-heart, that we know how effective it will be, where it will work, and that we know how it will work.
Have we have gone down into all the detail and looked at the consequences of all the different aspects of it? Yes, we have, and we have sought the best possible advice on all of it. But we recognise that domestic violence is a community problem and it needs a community response. With this legislation, we are saying that we believe that together we can make a difference - we must make a difference.
You have heard members in this Chamber talk about the effect, not just on the victims, the women, but on those silent victims, the children, and the lifelong consequences that domestic violence has on women and children.
Take this amendment in the context of the Domestic and Family Violence Act. It cannot be taken out of that context because it is embodied, when we pass it, in that act, which was developed with the primary objective of better protecting the women and children in our community. We know half of the assaults committed in the Territory are domestic violence related. We have all lived far too long with this. We need to do whatever it takes to tackle the problem. We will continue to try new initiatives, whatever it takes, to tackle the problem. The mandatory reporting of serious harm is significant, but it is not the only thing we are doing and if it were the only thing, it would not be enough.
We should never underestimate the impact of a $15m resource investment into the key areas of counselling, crisis support, and accommodation; seeing the safe houses roll-out across the communities and the cooling-off places for the men. That will have such an enormous impact at the community level. Knowing that men are now part of the solution will have an enormous impact; it can never just be a women’s argument. We will never win the argument if it is just a women’s argument. It has to be the men as well. We have to bring the men out of the shame and the blame, into nurturing and putting down the fight with the women, and protecting their women and their children.
I am so proud of the football men of Central Australia for the calendar they have made, the statements they are saying, and for the pacts they are making amongst each other about how they believe in pursing the protection of their women and their children; I am very proud of those men. I am proud of the footballers at the national level - the Indigenous All Stars and the Crows - for standing out there and making a bold statement to start the public awareness and education campaign that will say - no more. A simple message. No more. It is about protecting our women and children.
This is an important step towards that genuine change in community attitudes and behaviour regarding domestic and family violence. We hope that this reform will tip the balance and make us all legally, as well as morally, responsibly to stop the violence towards women and children. It is intended to provide further protection to those people who experience abuse and violence within their relationships and within their families.
Mandatory reporting is not about peering over your neighbour’s fence or dobbing to the police. It is about refusing to ignore serious violence to those who are most vulnerable. I believe this is a courageous step, and I am proud that the Territory is the first place in the world to take this step.
Mandatory reporting is sending a message to the community, to our friends, to our neighbours, to our families, that abuse should no longer be ignored and that we, the community, will no longer remain silent. Open those closed doors, open those closed mouths, and contact the police. I know that is hard. I know people will be frightened. However, we have constructed the legislation to provide the supports and the delays necessary to provide safety when we think safety will be put at risk by the simple matter of reporting. We took on board, from community consultation, the real fear of someone being at risk if an immediate report is required.
Therefore, we included in the legislation the ability to delay that report on the basis of safety and safety plans being put in place. We recognise the very real circumstances. This is not just an issue in remote communities; it is also an issue that presents itself in the suburbs of our city and in our towns.
This bill creates a mandatory reporting law for abuse that occurs within a domestic relationship and causes serious physical harm, or where a person’s life or safety is under serious or imminent threat because of domestic violence. The reporting requirement is specifically defined in this way to ensure that the police, domestic violence counsellors, and women’s shelter workers are able to become involved at the most appropriate stage in any domestic abuse situation. This follows extensive consultation with the community and the domestic abuse counsellors and other professionals who work in the field. We decided that extending mandatory reporting to all forms of abuse, such as emotional or financial intimidation, could potentially cut off those significant avenues of assistance for women who want to leave a relationship.
We looked at the extent and also at the workability of that and of encouraging the use of mandatory reporting, rather than confusion, in the sector. There is a stark difference of opinion in this Chamber today about that. We looked at all levels of harm. It is still an offence to perpetrate harm – absolutely - it is there in the Domestic and Family Violence Act; it is an offence. I challenge anyone to make that call. We chose serious harm for mandatory reporting based on what we know is the best advice from people who work in the field: the police, the domestic violence professionals, and the shelters.
It is the government’s intention that this legislation is clear and simple, to bring to the attention of the police any women and children who are at serious risk from domestic violence - and men. Men are not excluded from this, however, we know that the victims are mostly women and their children. It is the government’s intention to ensure the safety of women and children from family members or others with who they are in a domestic relationship, from subjecting them to a degree of violence that is absolutely unacceptable, and is criminal.
This is world-first legislation, and we all acknowledge that domestic violence is an entrenched community problem; we need the entire community to be involved to tackle it. The legislation overrides any other professional obligation or duty of confidentiality, which reflects the absolute seriousness with which the government considers the issue. The government believes that no one should be able to opt out of reporting serious domestic violence simply because of their professional background. We recognise that this challenges the lawyers and the medical professions, and there has been consultation with these professions throughout the process. We put the seriousness of tackling domestic violence and serious harm perpetrated against women and sadly, children, before professional privilege. That is how seriously we are taking this matter.
I know there are concerns in this Chamber in terms of the definition of ‘harm’, but the requirement for mandatory reporting does not hinge on defining harm. The bill creates an offence if any person fails to report if they have a reasonable belief that a person has caused serious physical harm to another person within a domestic relationship, or that a person’s life or safety is under serious or imminent threat because of domestic violence. The bill requires a police officer to investigate any report made. People are not precluded from reporting a belief that any domestic violence is occurring, or any harm of any description is occurring.
When a report is made to police, the Domestic Violence Protection Unit will be tasked to investigate, the police will investigate the allegation that domestic violence is occurring. The definition of ‘harm’ comes into play in determining whether a person has committed an offence for failing to report. It is then up to a court, during a prosecution for the offence of failing to report, to decide whether a person was obliged to report in the circumstances; that is whether, in the circumstances, the person would have formed a reasonable belief that a person was seriously harmed due to domestic violence, or a person’s life or safety was threatened. The offence of failing to report applies to domestic violence which inflicts serious physical harm upon a person, this is physical harm and includes the cumulative effect of more than one harm that endangers or is likely to endanger a person’s life, or that is or is likely to be significant and long-standing.
This high level of violence requires police attention and it is the government’s intention that the community assist in bringing violence of this nature to the attention of police. It is entirely consistent with the role of police to respond where serious physical harm is involved, or where the life or safety of another person is under serious or imminent threat. We believe it is not feasible to create an offence for failing to report abuse that is not clear and not visible. We do not believe it is the role of police to deal with matters not within their skill sets: mental health, for example. Police are not, in circumstances where there is emotional and psychological violence damaging the individual - which is a crime and will remain a crime - the most appropriate professionals to provide immediate assistance to those crimes. Yes, they are crimes, and charges should be laid and they should go through the courts and be prosecuted. But the police are not the ones to deal with that, we have other professionals who are equipped to deal with that.
We know there is good work done on a daily basis by the many organisations throughout the Territory that assist people who experience domestic and family violence. These organisations provide a variety of supports to assist people to seek their own way through the violence they are experiencing. We believe these broader professionals are better placed, through the use of their wider skills base, to assist those victims to build the self-esteem required to work out their solutions and get out of the situation in those other areas of harm.
Mandatory reporting did not just suddenly arise on the government’s agenda. It has been developed over some time. In July 2007, an informal consultation occurred with stakeholders on whether the government should introduce the mandatory reporting obligation of domestic violence on health professionals. A discussion paper, Mandatory Reporting of Domestic Violence by Health Professionals, was subsequently prepared by the former Department of Health and Community Services in conjunction with the Department of Justice and released on 4 January 2008. On 8 July 2008, the government made …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: … a significant step: a public announcement of its intention to legislate the mandatory reporting of domestic violence by all adults. I thank the Chief Minister and the then Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Arafura, for that bold step.
Dealing with domestic violence is not a new concept for our health professionals. The Department of Health and Families has a policy for dealing with domestic and family violence which provides that: where a health professional suspects domestic and family violence has occurred, the victim is encouraged to report to the police. Where the health professional believes the client’s life, health or safety is under serious or imminent threat they must report to police, regardless of client consent. Health professionals are required to report a child, or any person under the age of 18 years, who has been maltreated or is at risk of maltreatment, this includes psychological and/or physical impairment as a result of exposure to domestic and family violence.
The government’s intention with this legislation is simple and clear: to bring to the attention of police, any woman and children who are at serious risk because of domestic violence. The Department of Health and Families, through Northern Territory Family and Children’s Services, is working on the critical communication, education and awareness strategy. It will tackle those difficult issues around community acceptance of domestic violence and will seek to change attitudes to improve and, hopefully, get rid of the stigma attached to domestic violence and replace it with one of community responsibility. It is everyone’s business. It is our intention with this policy to make domestic violence everyone’s business, as we endeavour to do with violence, harm or threats against children.
The government will also strengthen crisis accommodation and counselling services across the Territory, so incidents of serious domestic violence can be brought to police attention through these services and they are better equipped to deal with what we hope will be a response through community awareness to report domestic violence. We will continue to listen carefully to the sector: to police, to domestic violence workers, health professionals, legal professionals, and the court systems. We will not stop today with this reform.
I have just taken up the portfolio of Justice and moved into the role of Attorney-General, and I know there are other issues to be tackled in terms of the broader Domestic and Family Violence Act; issues such as whether threatening behaviour is a breach of a domestic violence order and issues of double jeopardy. I make a commitment to the Chamber, as the new Attorney-General, that I will pursue these issues. I will take options to my Cabinet colleagues and report to this Assembly. It will not take years. It will be work done as soon as is practicable. At the first meeting, with the CEO of Justice, I raised these issues and asked for options to come forward.
The courts infrastructure needs improving; I am aware of that. The Department of Justice is looking at and pursuing how we can improve the courts, because they are an important component of this.
The member for Goyder raised a concern that the Chief Minister, the minister for Police, had not responded to a letter from her dated 7 January. I have a copy of that response and it is dated 13 February. I will table it, but I was informed that it had been sent prior to today. I wanted to respond to that.
The member for Nelson raised issues about the bush and how it will work for remote communities and health professionals, which is why we included those defences of reasonable excuses in making immediate reports; picking up on community consultations to provide the opportunity to delay mandatory reporting to put in place the safety of the victim and, also, the safety of professionals involved. We are aware of the potential impact this will have out in the bush. The Tasmanian Family Violence Act of 2004 has a requirement for reporting of family violence, but it is only around prescribed persons who are professionals and it has not been enacted.
I reiterate that today’s debate has been a very significant step for this Assembly, for the members of this parliament but, most of all, a significant step for the women and children of the Territory. I know we are not all of one mind in the detail of this amendment, but I believe we are all of one mind in the intent to put better protections in place for the women and children who are primarily the victims of domestic and family violence. I recognise that men can be victims as well.
This is not the only answer. The government backs up this significant, world-first policy shift with resources into the sector - not insignificant resources for the amount of resources available to the Territory – of $15m going into the critical areas of crisis and support services, accommodation, public awareness and education campaigns. I have no doubt that the Minister for Children and Families, who has carriage and responsibility for the operational approaches - counselling, support services, crisis accommodation, public awareness and education campaigns - is capable of taking up the challenge ahead to change the attitude of the community and the Territory towards violence. I am pleased she wants to work with the men of the Territory to do that.
I am proud of the men I have seen come forward to champion this, and I am humbled by the strong, capable women who champion this. We all know victims; some are very close to us, and some we have read about. My mother has pursued this issue since the 1970s, when it was unpopular to even mention it. I witnessed debates in this Chamber, of men in this Chamber howling her down on this issue. I know she has been sitting there listening to this debate all day long. I know victims - Indigenous women - who fled their communities and found shelter in my family home; I witnessed it as a child.
I am humbled to be the Attorney-General to have passage of this through parliament. The challenge lies ahead for every one to report domestic and family violence.
I commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 27 November 2008.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Remuneration Tribunal completed its 2008 Report and Determination on the Entitlements of Members of the Assembly, including ministers and office holders. The Determination was received by government on 28 October 2008.
This is a conservative and sensible approach in regard to members’ entitlements. The tribunal has increased the base or urban electorate allowances by 7%, which takes into account the CPI for the period June 2007 to June 2008. It also takes into account the average increase in the number of constituents in electorates. The additional amount applying to rural electorates has been increased by 4.2% to reflect the CPI increase.
The additional salary of officers has been increased by 4%, and is based on the percentage increase received by NT public servants between October 2007 and October 2008. Travelling allowances have been increased in accordance and in line with the Australian government Tax Office determinations.
The tribunal notes that, since the last RTD, there have been significant changes to the boundaries of the rural electorates. The tribunal foreshadows that before next year’s RTD, it will comprehensively review the electorate allowance for all seats, particularly the rural seats.
This is a conservative, steady-as-she-goes, commonsense determination, acknowledging the increased costs that members have in serving their constituents.
I thank the tribunal for their work and diligence in ensuring that we have the capacity, as MLAs, to represent and serve our constituents. I look forward to future reports from the tribunal.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I also acknowledge the hard work of the tribunal and thank them for their diligence in tending to these matters and providing the opportunity for members to respond.
I concur fully with the comments made by the Chief Minister, and note the report.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Northern Territory Public Service Reform and Revitalisation
Mr KNIGHT (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, the Henderson government supports our hard-working public servants. We are committed to ensuring the NTPS remains contemporary and equipped to continue its tasks of advising government and providing services to Territorians. This afternoon, I will detail the current state of the Northern Territory Public Service, the government’s expectations of the public sector, and the challenges it faces.
Since self-government in 1978, the Northern Territory Public Service has been characterised by its can-do attitude. The energy, commitment, flair and leadership the NTPS has brought to the task of nurturing the development of the Northern Territory should be acknowledged and applauded. Our current public service, in many ways, faces a more demanding and complex environment than in 1978.
Our expectation is that public servants will help improve the economic and social environment of our community. As a community, we expect the provision of frank, fearless and professional advice to government, the efficient implementation of government decisions, and the delivery of high-quality services. We also have expectations of how they behave and how they represent the Northern Territory, as its employees. They must act with propriety, probity, honesty, honour and respect. The Northern Territory has been very fortunate in that there is virtually no evidence of Northern Territory public servants acting with a lack of probity, honesty and good intent.
As ministers and active members of the community, we see evidence every day of the commitment of public servants. We should be very proud that we have not experienced the corruption and maladministration other jurisdictions have endured in their public sectors.
Despite those positive attitudes which characterise our public service, some in our community unfairly criticise, in my view, public servants as a group. Of course, they are not perfect. Service delivery can always be improved, and they are not above criticism. They are absolutely accountable and responsible to the community. However, public servants do not deserve unfair criticism and they do not deserve attacks from the opposition. We need to remember that when a public servant is criticised they are largely unable to defend themselves. Their only real defence is to continue to behave professionally and continue to produce good advice and services.
Processes are in place to deal with performance issues, perceived or otherwise, whether through agency policy, investigations by the Ombudsman, or reporting by the Auditor-General. It is disappointing that the CLP continue to denigrate senior public servants. We do not acknowledge enough the hard work and contribution public servants make. Too often we hear the term ‘fat cats’ used to describe the senior executive group of public servants; a stereotypical criticism of public servants collectively, that they do not work hard and are paid too much. Let me set the record straight. The government has a wage policy that provides for public servants to be paid amongst the best in the country. It is important that we attract and retain the best talent to senior positions in the NTPS. I believe that executives are fairly paid, highly committed, and the vast majority perform to our expectations.
The government wants a public service which has the courage to act. Given the social and economic issues we need to address, having a public sector which does not have the courage to act is not an option. We need a public service which has the courage to question the status quo, look for innovative solutions to complex social issues, engage with people in our society, provide frank and fearless advice, and persist when the going gets tough under increasing demands for more and better services, when there are limited resources to do the job. The public sector must be committed to deliver. Any public servant who does not understand that it is all about service delivery, no matter where they sit in the agency structure, is unlikely to have a long and satisfying career in the service.
Chief executives in the Northern Territory, as in all jurisdictions, have performance agreements with their ministers which cover service delivery. They and their staff must provide advice that is professionally developed and presented, taking into account available evidence and research, an assessment of government’s policy objectives, the cost implications, and the best means of implementation. Public servants also have to be committed to the delivery of quality services directly to the public; we expect there to be a commitment to working towards the government’s policy outcomes and delivering services accordingly. We also expect public servants to connect with the community.
In 2001, when Labor won government for the first time since self-government in 1978, one of the first messages given to the public service was the notion of community engagement as a way of conducting the business of government. Our aim was to embed the concept of community engagement so it became the normal way the government and its agencies do business. Any discussion on the public sector connecting with the community must include the particular issue of how we connect with Indigenous Territorians.
Indigenous people comprise almost 30% of our population, but just over 8% of our public servants are Indigenous. Correcting this imbalance will take time and focused effort, but we will see this addressed. Under any measure, this significant group of Territorians do not get a fair share of the economic and social rewards which are generated by our society as a whole. We need to find better ways of involving more Indigenous people in generating economic and social wealth and wellbeing, in order to close the gap.
The government also wants public servants to have pride in what they do, confident in the knowledge that the government, and the community they serve, values the contribution they make. I want to promote the idea that part of being a public servant goes beyond pay and conditions. It is the idea that we receive personal, individual benefit from doing good work which, ultimately, is for the betterment of others.
From time to time, there is public debate about the number of public servants we employ. This is important, but the size of the public service is directly linked to the services the government directs the NTPS to deliver. The Territory has grown and so have the demands on the public service. The Henderson government makes no apologies for investing in more police, teachers and nurses.
Unlike the opposition, we have no plans for the broad-scale sacking of public servants. In raw terms, the NTPS had 17 048 full-time equivalent employees in December 2008. This is an increase of 2359 since December 2004, or 16% overall. Most of the extra public servants are in direct service delivery roles. We are committed to ensuring that the NTPS remains contemporary in the way it operates.
The government’s arrangements for the public sector are set in the Public Sector Employment and Management Act or PSEMA; regulations and by-laws; and determinations, employment instructions and instruments issued by the Commissioner for Public Employment. The PSEMA was passed in 1993 and, at the time, was considered best practice across Australia. It has served the public service well but has not been reviewed since its introduction. Importantly, the act and regulations define principles which dictate the framework for the public sector to operate.
These include:
2. the principles of public administration and management, which highlight expectations, the discharge of responsibility,
promote decision-making and proper financial management;
access to training and development, and appropriate remuneration;
4. the principles of conduct for public servants;
5. the provision of consultation with employees through unions through the Public Sector Consultative Council; and
6. processes on how matters of discipline and the ability of an employee to discharge duties are to be considered.
We are at a point in the evolution of the Northern Territory Public Service where all these government arrangements should be reviewed to ensure they are modern and set for the tasks ahead. There are also several important features of the NTPS which need to be addressed to ensure it operates effectively. The NTPS employees, like the community in general, are ageing, and we need to address the question of where the next generation of public servants will come from.
Even though recent history tells us that people are working longer, it is obvious that we are experiencing a large exodus of staff with their accumulated knowledge and experience, and this will extend over the next decade. The NTPS needs a long-term human resources strategy and, in particular, a policy on workforce planning to address the issue. There is a need for a service-wide, coordinated approach to issues such as: What do we mean by workforce planning? Which methodologies are appropriate? What tools, data, and analytical capacity do we have? How do we bring all the issues together to develop a whole-of-service human resources strategy?
All agencies must invest in the development of their staff, and there is a particular need for a coordinated approach to develop executive leadership within the NTPS ranks. For the past few years this issue has been tackled on an agency by agency basis. Looking at the current group of agency chief executives, we are fortunate to have a good mix of talent. Senior positions are advertised nationally and it is encouraging that Territorians have been able to successfully compete with applicants from across Australia. We need to ensure that this ability to develop our own is maintained and nurtured. Internal applicants for leadership and management roles need development opportunities so they can meet the necessary standard in experience, qualifications and potential.
It is our government’s policy that the public sector should more closely reflect the makeup of our community. We are looking at initiatives to promote diversity in the NTPS, including employment of Indigenous Territorians, people with disabilities and those who speak English as a second language, in order to achieve our goals of better, clearer social policy and social outcomes. As the largest employer in the Northern Territory, we are making a concerted effort to make the necessary changes but it will take years in some areas to improve the outcomes.
The NTPS needs to be seen as an employer of choice. We need the best public servants delivering services in the Territory. We need a clear strategy to attract and retain Generation Y employees. We will be promoting the public service as an employer of choice, as an innovative and challenging workplace, where advancement is possible and management attitudes are responsive and modern. In a time of skill shortage, an ageing workforce and general high competition for available workers, the public service has to be sensitive to the needs and wants of not only Generation Y, but all potential employees, if we want to attract them.
We need to promote innovation in the workplace as a priority. I am pleased to detail a program of initiatives and the promotion of public servants’ values and ideals, which we have titled Reform and Revitalisation of the Public Sector, to meet the challenges of the future.
These issues start with a strategic human resources plan for the Northern Territory Public Service, which has been developed, and details specific action over the next couple of years to have a general effect on the issues I have highlighted today. Agencies are expected to develop contemporary, complementary human resources plans to suit their own particular circumstances.
This strategic plan addresses four main themes: the legislative policy and the governance base on which the NTPS operates; the attraction and retention of staff; the development of our own staff; and the promotion of public service ideals.
I have already announced a review of the government's arrangements which dictate how the public service operates. The PSEMA, the regulations, by-laws and employment instructions are being reviewed to ensure they are contemporary. In addition to amendments to the act coming from the review, I foreshadowed a proposed change to the definition of ‘merit’ so that the diversity value an applicant might bring to the workplace will be considered when deciding who is the most suitable applicant.
‘Diversity’ would fit with considerations of knowledge, skills, qualifications, experience and potential for future development when determining merit.
The review will look at the current legislative and procedural arrangements covering discipline, inability and medical incapacity in the public service to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between public service managers being able to act in these matters and natural justice and fairness being available to employees.
Another initiative is attracting and retaining staff. The ability for the NTPS, like any organisation, to attract retain staff is a combination of pay and conditions, the culture, opportunities for development and career progression, flexible work arrangements, work satisfaction, and generally whether they satisfy the personal motivators of staff and those who might be looking to join.
There are several things we are doing aimed at improving our ability to attract and retain staff. We will be looking at our wages policy. The current policy has been in place since 2006 and has generally served the Northern Territory well; it has resulted in the public sector being fairly paid and amongst the best paid in Australia. We must be competitive to attract the necessary skills and experiences to the Northern Territory. We need to ensure this remains the case.
For the Commissioner of Public Employment and his staff, 2007-08 in particular, has seen a heavy workload. They have negotiated 11 workplace agreements for the Northern Territory public sector’s approximately 16 500 public servants. These collective agreements include:
NT Public Sector 2008-2010 Union Collective Agreement covering approximately 9000 employees;
NT Public Sector Teacher and Educator 2008-2010 Union Collective Agreement covering approximately 2900 teachers and education support staff;
NT Public Sector Nurses 2008-2011 Collective Agreement covering approximately 1800 registered and enrolled nurses and nurse managers;
Medical Officers (Northern Territory Public Sector) 2008-2010 Workplace Agreement covering approximately 450 medical officers, including specialists;
Dental Officers (NTPS) 2008-2011 Agreement covering approximately 20 public dentists;
Northern Territory Police Force Consent Agreement 2008 covering approximately 13 000 police officers, auxiliaries and Aboriginal Community Police Officers;
Prison Officers (NTPS) 2007-2011 Certified Agreement covering approximately 360 prison officers;
2007-2010 Power and Water Union Collective Agreement covering approximately 750 employees of the Power and Water Corporation;
Darwin Port Corporation Marine Pilots Union Collective Agreement covering four marine pilots;
NT Public Sector Fire and Rescue Service 2007-2010 Partnership Agreement covering approximately 160 firefighters; and
Darwin Port Corporation (NTPS) 2008 Union Collective Agreement covering approximately 55 employees, including service workers and administration employees.
I am pleased to say that these agreements have delivered financially responsible outcomes for the government. The agreements have promoted the reputation of the Northern Territory Public Service as an employer of choice, through the continuation of fair wages outcomes and the introduction of a range of flexible working arrangements that help employees balance their work and family life.
A whole-of-service approach to workforce planning will be developed by the Commissioner of Public Employment to assist agencies in addressing the question of how to find and retain the next generation of public servants, given the ageing of the workforce and the general skills shortage in this country. The aim is to better position agencies to make workforce-related decisions based on evidence and analysis and to meet their service obligations to the government and the community into the future.
In an effort to encourage agencies to meet the government’s policy objective of the Northern Territory Public Service more closely resembling Northern Territory society, we will do two things. First, we are looking at changing the definition of ‘merit’ in the Public Sector Employment and Management Act as part of the review of the act, to include consideration of diversity in the workplace. Second, the commissioner is reviewing all existing policies aimed at assisting those in society who need it, such as the Willing and Able policy for those with disabilities, the Indigenous Employment and Career Development Strategy, and the current approach to work/life balance. In addition, each agency chief executive will introduce the Chief Minister’s Innovation, Recognition and Reward Program and tailor it to their business. We want to recognise excellence in the public service. It could be a simple, ‘well done’ or additional development opportunities for those who perform well.
We need to develop staff at all levels so the public sector can continue to improve services to Territorians. There is much to do in this area, but one specific need is the development of leadership capacity within the service.
To enable us to continuously refresh senior and middle executive ranks, a comprehensive service-wide executive leadership framework has been put in place. This initiative will complement the fine work many agencies are currently doing to develop their staff. The framework has a centrally coordinated talent identification process, to develop the brightest and best who have the potential to become managers or leaders. There will be many development options available, including executive coaching, mentoring, development experiences in other agencies, or involvement in a range of structured and less formal development programs.
In addition, the NTPS has become a financial member of the Australian and New Zealand School of Government. ANZSOG, as it is known, is regarded in our part of the world as the pre-eminent provider of a range of leadership and specific issue programs for senior public sector executives. Chief executives are required to lift the bar in providing leadership to the service. They are expected not only to achieve the business outcomes required by the government, but also to take responsibility for the productivity of the service. I am pleased to advise that agency chief executives meet regularly to discuss these matters in the Coordination Committee. CEOs are expected to embrace and promote the high ideals of the public service, which include:
driving improvements throughout the Territory;
There is certainly much to be done to ensure our public servants, who have served the Northern Territory so well over the last 30 years, continue to play their part in the future of the Northern Territory. This is very important work. An energetic and appropriately resourced public service is required to deliver on this government's commitment to protecting Territory jobs, our economy and our future. This government will continue to pay close attention to the health and wellbeing of the public service.
The Henderson government is truly committed to addressing workplace issues in the NTPS to maximise performance and effectiveness.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly to take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, in response to this statement, I say, that if it comes to the nub of the issue, which is the morale of the public sector, morale is something which must be managed very carefully, and not abused or misused. To make the allegations contained in this statement, which have been perpetrated and carried again and again by the government, regarding the position we took to the last election, which was very dishonestly presented during the campaign, in terms of the intention to slash, and savagely and callously reduce the public sector; is plainly wrong.
It does you no service whatsoever in giving substance to the aspirations that are described in terms of lifting, inspiring and strengthening our public servants. We at no stage spoke of such callous measures. We only acknowledged there was a need to ease the numbers back, a position which was described again and again by the former Treasurer, but failed to be delivered. It is simply that.
At no stage was there one frontline public servant who needed to be concerned, because the purpose of the policy announcements, which are contained here and which members opposite clearly have no interest in reading the substance of - they prefer to go to the headline act and try to frighten for political purposes, and denigrate something which is, in fact, a considered piece - which was to strengthen service delivery. That was the sole purpose.
The ministerial statement, which is titled Reform and Revitalisation, needs to be backed up with something that is fresh, new and invigorating. But what we have is a fairly pedestrian walk down a street, pointing out the interesting things, it is more like a weather report; there is nothing startlingly new in this. It is just an observation of the landscape, and there is nothing of reform. Reform is reshaping, revitalising, putting life back into something, and I do not see anything other than the pedestrian or the mundane. You are stating the bleeding obvious so many times in the things referred to here. I believe our public servants require more than a statement made by the government, much more; more substance, more to reach in and cause them to be inspired to follow. I believe that is the issue.
In your statement we enter the realm of sloganeering. It is easy to grab phrases and buzz words and create the impression of something which may be lacking in substance. It is like confectionery; it is pleasant and it gives you a sugar hit and nothing else after that. If you just have slogans like the ‘can-do attitude of the Territory’ and refer to it colloquially as something people know about; you need to think about that a little more deeply.
The Territory has been referred to as a place with a ‘can-do’ attitude. Many of the public servants in the Territory are legendary and nationally recognised and some of them have gone on to do marvellous things around the nation; they displayed something extraordinary. It started in 1978. I was living in Western Australia and heard marvellous things were happening in the Territory; innovations which spread and influenced many things around the country. Why was that? It was because those who led had the courage to lead. You were able to take the risk and bear the challenge of leadership from the front. That is the executive arm of government; the Cabinet. They are the ones who have the responsibility and the authority, in fact, the obligation to provide the leadership. If you provide the leadership then your troops will lift but, if you do not provide the leadership and you defer to those who are behind you, and you say: ‘I do not know. What do you think?’ You become captured by the system.
Then the risk is absorbed by the system and the system is inherently adverse to risk because they are doing their job. The leadership is to be provided by the executive arm, but if it is not carried by the executive arm back into the organisation, by being adverse to risk, you will find it subtly changes. You will find a consideration or a review. You will find many other actions will take place, but no action which results in a clear outcome, because they are desperate for leadership from the front.
To illustrate, I will share a story that I am very fond of because it illustrates this point rather than talking around it, which may be hard to understand. I ran the story past Paul Everingham, the former Chief Minister, and asked if it was true and he gave me a beautiful smile and said: ‘It might be’. The story illustrates the leadership provided by the executive arm which lifts the public service and provides morale, and you can cut through, inspire and achieve outcomes.
There was a time when there was no flyover on Bagot Road, and when Palmerston was developing we had trouble with traffic coming into town. People made a lot of noise for a long time; there was a little change, but hardly enough. The pressure mounted and then a solution was sought and demanded. At that time Bagot Road had no flyover, and there was a lot of congestion with people trying to get to work in Darwin, and pressure was mounting. A solution was required.
The executive arm, Paul Everingham, the Chief Minister at the time, called in his senior public servants and said to two of them, who were in Transport and Works at that stage: ‘You know that road that comes in from Bagot Road and joins the Stuart Highway? There is a lot of congestion and the traffic cannot get through’. ‘Yes, we know Chief Minister’. ‘Well, we have to fix that’. ‘Yes, that is right. There is a big problem’. And he said: ‘What we need is a flyover’. And one said: ‘Goodness me, Chief Minister that is a very expensive option’. The other one said: ‘As an engineer, it is very difficult to construct a flyover in a situation like that’. Paul said: ‘Well, that is a damn shame, because we have a problem and we need a flyover’. The bean counter said: ‘Chief Minister, I understand we have a problem. But it is very expensive’. The engineer said: ‘It will be very difficult to build’. So Paul said: ‘That is a damn shame. Anyway, you blokes, would you like to sign these couple of letters I have?’ ‘What are they, Chief Minister?’ He said: ‘They are your resignations. You see I need a couple of blokes who can build me a flyover’. And they said: ‘Hang on, hang on’. They did not sign the pieces of paper, and they went away and solved the problem. I understand the flyover won an award.
That is leadership from the front. You carry the risk. If you make four or five decisions like that and get a couple wrong, you get three right and you have provided that lift. The burden of risk is taken from those who are the servants and given to the master, which is the executive arm - the ones elected to achieve something.
You get that lift, you get that cut-through and you release the potential of the public service. I admire the public service immensely. I have had a fair bit to do with education and what I like about the public service is its dedication. You are quite right, minister, referring to that ethos of wanting to make a contribution and having a sense of pride in having designed a bridge, a road, or this policy that has delivered this result. People look back with pride. You go to other places and you meet someone who says: ‘I used to work in the Territory and I had a part to play in this, that or the other’.
There is a fellow out in Palmerston and he was involved in the research farms. He talks fondly about the things he did. There is a certain pride that does not come from the amount of money you earned, but from the things you have done as an achievement - and they refer to the leadership of the time.
Free them up, so that they can use their skills for solving problems; but the risk should be carried from the front. That is how you unlock the ‘can-do’ attitude. Leadership at the front which believes they can do and must do, because they have been elected to lead. That is the single issue that needs to be addressed, and that was the core response we had to the public sector reform that we took to the last election.
I was horrified by the member for Karama running very expensive advertisements, with her face beside them, almost tripling the numbers we said we intended to make, which were largely in the public relations area and senior executives, and were quite defined, and then there was natural attrition. At no stage was any frontline public servant compromised. You had the capacity in an election to tell barefaced lies that were paid for with your smiling face next to them, and you dare to come in here and say: ‘You know, the morale of the public sector is so important’. Well, you are responsible for terrifying them for political purposes, and you terrify with a falsehood.
Then you say the Country Liberals are always attacking senior public servants. Get it right. Have you seen what has happened in those recent conflicts where they talk about human shields? We are always putting the government to account. What does the government do? They grab a public servant and put them in front and say: ‘Do not attack the public service’. Excuse me, we are talking to you! And they hold a public servant in front; that is called taking a human shield. Cowards do that when they go into battle. If you think that we are attacking public servants, get it clear;, we are attacking you and your failure to deal and take responsibility for the leadership that you are required to take because you are elected.
Every four years you go to the electorate and if you have made a number of decisions and got them all wrong – well, fair cop - but if you have made decisions, people say: ‘Good on you, at least you gave it a shot. You made some decisions, you took a risk and you served our interests’. They will keep you going there, and they will keep you going forever and a day.
But if you continue to play word games and you are the centre of it - the interests of the people are not at the centre of it - you will spend a huge amount of money making sure you promote the government. I could not believe it. On Friday I went down Mitchell Street to say farewell to a good friend, and what do you think I found on the footpath? In one of the units down there, a whole row of letterboxes. There were 40 glossy brochures telling us about Tiger Brennan or something?
We are getting them out in Palmerston now. More glossy brochures. I thought they had gone away. They are back. Glossy brochures about Weddell - half a decade away. What is it with you guys? Are your energy and resources expended in constantly promoting government? That is not the business. The business is achieving something - achieving a result. You do not even have to promote that.
I spoke to a wise man recently. In fact, it was Paul Everingham. He said: ‘Do not just keep telling people about what you are going to do with law and order. Just do it. Do not bother them with all the stories about plasma screen televisions, and we are going to do this, and a photo of a scary-looking kid who is going to come and get you’. You have all these glossy brochures coming out, and people think: ‘Oh my goodness, the government is really onto this; that is really good’. And nothing happens - except glossy brochures. God, you should get sacked for that!
People want you to fix the thing, not make a big hullabaloo about it; about how good you are, or how much you recognise the problem. We are going to look at this, we are going to talk about that, we are going to put up a brochure here, we are going to put a sign up here, and we are going to hold a group meeting here, have a group hug there - and nothing happens. People get fed up with it. The country is getting fed up with that sort of stuff. Worst of all, the people who are remote from here are desperate; they have almost given up. Hope has evaporated. I do not reckon there is much here that is going to provide revitalisation. Come on, you are dressing it up!
Revitalisation? It is just like the batteries have gone a bit flat and you are going to change the brand of battery. It is nothing! There is no reshaping, no reform, no inspiring redirection, no drilling down to see what the core business is - service to the public.
Did you know there is a saying: ‘good leaders change organisations’, as though that is an achievement? So, we restructure everything; move all the deckchairs around. Yes, we have had a successful reorganisation. But great leaders change the way people think and feel. They lift people and bring out their potential. You deal with something deeper than just organisational change. People are desperate for something deeper. We have words here that say: ‘We are looking at changing the definition of this word. We are looking at a range of initiatives. We are considering this and we are considering that. We believe this, that and the other, and our policy is one of inclusion and diversity and recognising the diversity of the Territory’.
I am sorry - and I am not saying this because I am in the opposition and you are in the government, therefore, this cannot be good – this is not good. It is not inspiring enough to lift the skin off custard. It needs something different. Perhaps you are just running short on time, I do not know The public servants I know, who have degrees, who work hard, and who are dedicated to the Territory - I do not believe they will get past page 3 of that; really they will not. It is a statement delivered in parliament – a beautiful building, with wonderful people supporting us and spending long hours. I believe we could have done a lot better.
The Territory population has increased by about 10%. In certain sections of the public service, particularly in senior executive positions, there has been a large increase. It is explained that it is because of the complexity of government. Complexity could be reduced if the government led and carried it out front, like a train pulling the rest of the carriages along, rather than all going down to the carriages and having group meetings and things. Get out there and take the show somewhere. You need a purpose, and the purpose is delivered by the one who is driving the show; the ones who have been charged with the responsibility to lead.
There has been about an 18% increase, and I believe that is due largely to those who are not serving the public, but serving the interests of government. That is the element that needs to be removed. If you are there to mind the interest of the government - no matter what you say or how you dress it - if the energy is flowing around the government and looking after the interests of the government, you end up with a real problem. It becomes expensive, you are not able to effectively serve the interest or the needs of the people, and people become disillusioned.
The government becomes more powerful - power begets power - and you end up with the people missing out because they are no longer the emphasis. There are good public servants - thousands of them – who are desperate to serve their communities and to make a legacy, and they see the energy and resources go to mind the interest of the government, and that should not be. That is corruption, in the sense that the natural flow should be delivering services out to the community. And I mean that in a pure sense. Do not think I am a bit nervous of you guys over there, because you will grab that word and say: ‘Oh, you are talking about corruption in the public service’. If you try that, I will have you, because that is plain wrong.
I believe evidence of this warped thinking is that you get caught up in this idea that delivering a program is a result, or spending money is an achievement or an outcome. If you ran a business like that, you might say: ‘We have had a great day, we spent all this money’. Fantastic, you have spent all this money! I will use a farming analogy - it is like I had 1000 tonnes of wheat and I put it all in the ground. Excellent, that is fantastic, we have sown all the paddocks, but we have sown it in the middle of summer. That does not matter, I have actually put all the seeds in the ground, and achieved the objective.
However, your objective is to put it in at the right time so you end up with a harvest, with a result from your efforts, not do it just to go through the process. We see this going through the process and the delivery of programs as the result. It is so confusing – yet it is so clear - and we hear it again and again. The problem in health: ‘You guys are barking up the wrong tree, we have spent all this money’.
I cannot believe, after nine years, we are hearing the same stuff. Problems in education: ‘You guys cannot talk; we are spending all this money’. We are talking about the results in the NAPLAN tests. We are talking about the waiting list at the hospital. ‘But we are spending more money than you blokes ever did’. We are still hearing that strange talk. Let us get to the end of the process. You put this in and you got that out - measured results. Public servants, serving the community and achieving something to their benefit; not yours – so that you sound good and look good - that is the sort of reform that is needed; a change of thinking.
We have heard the slogans, and you have probably heard them: ‘the whole new era in Corrections’ and ‘a new way of thinking’. Well, it sounds like focus group stuff, and it actually sounds like the position the opposition took to the last election, to be frank with you. I do not know whether you saw the ads that I saw during the campaign. I did not see the ads that you made featuring me, because I was too busy, but you may have seen the ads that I did, which contain some of the words that the new minister has been using, and I do not mind that, because I believe that is right. That is the way I believe we should go.
But when we talk about ‘a whole new era in Corrections’, we are dressing it up; I do not know whether you actually believe that, or it just sounds really good. I want to be convinced, and you cannot be convinced anymore by slogans; you cannot sloganeer your way through. People are smarter than that. I mean, you cannot con kids, as a teacher, by spruiking on all the time and being unreal; they will see right through it. Our community is pretty smart. They will see through it, and you become sort of irrelevant, they will just be polite to you and all that, but they say: ‘When is that next election?’
Anyway, I hope that some of the things I have said fall on some fertile soil, somewhere. I am not just having a go here, there are some great opportunities, and I believe, with the title Reform and Revitalisation, they are having a lend of us. It is a weather report; they are having a bit of a look around, saying: ‘Look at all this stuff, we are going to look at this, we are going to look at that, we are considering this, and we might even change the definition of the word merit’, and a few other things. I believe they need to dig a little deeper.
I know many public servants who I have the highest admiration for. They deserve good leadership, and if I am ever given the opportunity, I will take the risk burden from them and carry it personally. The buck will stop with the executive arm of government; we will provide that leadership, I will carry the risk from the front, and I will cop that at the election. But I will make decisions so that public servants can be led and be empowered to achieve marvellous things for the Northern Territory. We could do it, and I believe it is time to bring the genuine – not the slogan – ‘can-do’ attitude back to the Territory because we could really sort some things out.
We could really work some difficult stuff out, I believe the atmosphere is just right for that. We have people desperate for change, leadership, good decision-making and courage. If you want to bring a ‘can-do’ attitude back, get up the front and lead; take some risks, dig a bit deeper and, please, give us a statement with a bit more substance than this.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Public Employment’s statement outlining the government’s recognition of our hard-working public servants. I agree with one point the Leader of the Opposition mentioned and that is the community is really smart and has a very long memory. The years of Porky have long gone …
A member: They will never forget you.
Mr VATSKALIS: … things were done differently in the Territory – it was described by different names, but the community remembered the Cresap Review the CLP put in place and resulted in completely decimating the public service. I remember a few years after I came to the Territory there was Planning for Growth which was supposed to reduce the number of public servants and reduce costs. It cost $65m and it was abolished and abandoned …
A member: I remember it.
Mr VATSKALIS: … and delivered nothing. I am glad the member opposite remembers because there were actually people called ‘toe cutters’. I will not reveal the name because he was supposed to cut a lot of …
A member: What was the nickname, Pruning for Growth? Was that it?
Mr VATSKALIS: Planning for Growth and it finished up being called ‘Pruning for Growth’ by the public service. It cost $65m; it did not save a dollar. I remember time after time driving into work and someone telling us about the new reality. We were sitting there bored out of our brains wondering what we would have for lunch, and nothing changed. That was how the CLP dealt with the public service.
I have to say if you go to elections you are a real dill to come out and say: ‘I am going to cut so many positions, so many contracts’. Hello! This is a public service town. There are 13 000 people who work for the public service and you start telling them you are going to cut 600 positions.
Mr Elferink: Yes, we know. We were honest with them. We made a conscious decision to be honest with them.
Mr VATSKALIS: I think you lost about 2500 votes. It was great. In my electorate it was fantastic, because I have quite a few public servants and because I worked for the public service for 19 years, I know quite a few of them.
To come in and tell us what happened when Everingham was the Chief Minister - they were different times. I remember when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was in government in Queensland. Every time he had a Cabinet meeting he put a letter in front of every member and said: ‘Sign here’. They were resignation letters, and he held them in his drawer and if that member dared to challenge him or oppose his opinion, the letter would appear on the table and he would say: ‘I accept your resignation’. That was the way things were done in those days; but things have changed.
Public servants today do not come from down south for two years and then go back. Public servants come to the Territory and build a career. Public servants come from other places in Australia and build a successful career. The people who come to the Territory are people who have drive, vision and are prepared to work very hard; and they do work very hard.
In 1992, I saw an advertisement in the Western Australian newspaper for a position in Darwin; it was January or February 1992. I received a response in June 1992, my interview was in December 1992 and I came to Darwin on 4 December 1992. I remember because my son’s birthday was on the 6th. So I came up on the 4th, I had my interview and flew back for my son’s birthday. I enjoyed Darwin but I was also very comfortable where I was. But here there was a challenge, and I took that challenge because that is what public servants do. People who want to be public servants like to work somewhere different, and if they want to deliver something, they like the challenge and they take the challenge. I am very pleased I did that, because if I had stayed in Western Australia, I do not think I would be talking to you today.
Public servants contribute directly to the economic and social environment of our community in many ways. I recognise and acknowledge the considerable work the Northern Territory Public Service makes across my portfolios of Health, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources and, of course, Racing, Gaming and Licensing and Alcohol Policy.
The Department of Health and Families - I have actually lived through the Department of Health and Community Services and Territory Health Services. I remember when they first came up with the logo we used to call it ‘Territory Hair Care’, because it was a face with hair flowing at the back. I came and I lived through different transformations with the Department of Health and Community Services to Health and Families, as it is now known.
I came in 1993 and worked as a manager of Environmental Health in the Darwin region, which then expanded to take in everything north of Katherine, including Gove, and many other things. I enjoyed my time in the public service and I know how hard public servants work.
When I first came here as a manager of Environmental Health, the department employed 4000 people. Today I am the minister for the department and we employ over 5100 people, and they do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. It is not only in the city, but out in the communities. I have friends working in Gove, Katherine, Yirrkala, and Ngukurr, and they work under difficult conditions.
Things have improved in these communities, but in 1993 it was like a third world country hitting me in the face. When I drove to Ngukurr and I saw it; it is a great place to drive to, but that was it. Now things are much better and we believe they are going to be better still. But things got better because public servants worked very hard.
Teachers work very hard - and I do not say that because I am married to a teacher - they go to school at 8 am and school finishes at 3 pm, but does she come home at 3 pm? No, she comes home at 5 pm, 5.30 pm or 6 pm. What does she do after that? After dinner she probably has to do some marking or prepare for the next day. They work very hard; they make a hell of a difference.
If you want to see people working hard look at nurses in remote communities. Being a policeman in the community is another profession which demands much effort, attention and personal sacrifice. Being a policeman in a small community where you know everyone and have to apply the law and sometimes have to actually step in and throw the book, is not like in Sydney and other places where the crime is very serious. It is petty crimes, it is drunkenness; things that destroy families and destroy communities, and people have to stand up and say no, you cannot do it any more.
It does not matter where our public servants are: in the city, in the towns, in the bush or in small communities; they are working very hard. In particular, the people who work for the Health department because they are dealing with things that actually create problems for people; people’s lives are at risk, kids are sick, alcohol, domestic violence, as we mentioned before, women turning up to the clinic, bashed. I will never forget a woman in Halls Creek. She came staggering into the petrol station with a star picket protruding from her chest. Her husband had thrown a star picket at her and it went through her and it had to be attended to.
Our workforce is our greatest asset; nurses and doctors, allied health professionals, environmental health officers, Aboriginal liaison officers, Aboriginal health workers, support staff, managers - they are working very hard because they want to make a difference in the Territory, for themselves and Territorians.
The national and international health workforce is facing serious shortages. We cannot get nurses anywhere, not only in Australia, and not in other places. I will give you an example. I was in Greece recently, for personal reasons, and the majority of the nurses in Greece are Filipinos. Locals will not go into nursing - they do not like it, they do not want to do it - so Greece imports Filipino nurses from the other side of the world - that happens everywhere. I recall a few years ago that we employed some Filipino nurses who were trained in Ireland because we could not find Australian nurses.
The Department of Health and Families has launched a strategic workforce plan 2008-11 to address the challenges and ensure our workforce matches our workplace needs now and in the future. The key area of focus within the plan includes: an evidence-based approach to inform workplace decisions and best practice planning models; attracting and retaining talent, including growing our own; more flexible recruitment options and modernising workplace practices; strengthening a capable workforce by investing in career development and driving change to prepare for the needs of the future; a supportive and engaging workplace to facilitate staff having a real input into decision-making, career pathways, work-life balance and acknowledging successes and challenges.
I know this probably sounds like a motherhood statement and you have seen it every where. The reality is how you translate this. I give you a commitment that this is going to be translated into reality in the Health department because I have been there before and I have heard these beautiful statements and, I have to admit, it does not always happen. Some things will happen, some things will not happen, depending on the manager, but now it is going to happen, because we have no option. We have to grow our own workforce; we have to actually give the opportunity to people to be further educated in order to fill the gaps. Each focus has defined measures to be reported upon regularly, through formal management reports and via feedback from staff surveys. I will hold the managers responsible for this, and I will speak with the staff myself, rather than look at the surveys.
The department of Health will continue to develop cultural diversity within the workforce, and has developed specific strategies and targets for expanding the Aboriginal and Torres Islander workforce. I recall that the Health department did very well in training people in cross-cultural workshops, providing information about Indigenous people, and people from non-English speaking backgrounds. I am amazed when people come from another state and are totally ignorant of the sensitivities of Aboriginal culture or the sensitivities of Greek, Italian, Thai or Chinese cultures.
Over 60% of our clients are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, yet, only 10% of our workforce is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. We are working to create an inclusive working environment, where the experience, knowledge and skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are valued, so that we can continue to improve our service and get closer to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. I really vouch for that because I worked as clinic manager at the Danila Dilba Medical Service in Darwin, and the Indigenous people who were trained as Aboriginal Health Workers were magnificent. They could easily identify with the needs and the wants of Indigenous people and provide culturally appropriate treatment.
I turn now to Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. In output, mining is the largest industry in the Territory, contributing 26% of the Gross State Product in 2006-07, compared to 7% nationally. At the moment we are undergoing a crisis internationally, but things are already starting to look brighter and China is already appearing to negotiate new prices. We have to be prepared for the next boom in resources, and the only way we can do that is to assist junior and mid-sized explorers of the Northern Territory to access equity in the current economic climate. That is the reason we have to bring forward discovery and to assist junior and mid-sized explorers with money to commence exploration again.
We are the only jurisdiction in Australia currently to have a Chinese strategy – and not only a Chinese strategy, but also a Japanese strategy. Others are rushing to imitate us, trying to put together something to take to China, where we have been for the past two years. My recent visit to China, in November 2008, opened the door to industry representatives from over 30 Chinese companies: Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, Energy Metals Limited, Territory Uranium Company Limited, TNG Limited and promoted over 20 Territory exploration projects to potential Chinese investors. Not only that, we have attracted Chinese commerce to explore in the Territory. We already have people in the Territory who have based their company in offices in Cullen Bay; it is a Chinese company doing their own work. How did this happen? Because the people in the department were really happy to develop the strategy, to develop web pages and translate web pages, and had the skills to speak Mandarin, so whenever we go to China we have the advantage to speak to the people in their own language.
There are many opportunities in the Territory, and those opportunities have become reality because of the hard work of the Mines department. More is happening and more is being done because they have the enthusiasm. I recall when it was originally suggested that we should go out and promote the Territory, some people, especially after the event, said: ‘This has never happened before, we cannot do it; we do not know how to do it’. However, later on they were very enthusiastic, very keen and we developed this strategy together. People designed books, promotional materials, booklets, and everything we have in order to promote the Territory. We translated them into Chinese and took them with us and those people’s enthusiasm was infectious.
I am really pleased and really proud that I was with these people in China. Their work in China is really well known. When you are summoned to meet the General Director of the Chinese Nuclear Energy Commission, you know they know about you and they want to see you. This shows that the department does an excellent job, and the Northern Territory Minerals department’s fame has crossed the border and everybody knows about it in China.
Another group of hard-working people are the people in Primary Industry and Fisheries. The work that Fisheries is doing is unbelievable because, not only do we have to deal with commercial fishermen, we have to deal with amateur fishermen, Indigenous interests and, at the same time, ensure the fishing resources remain for years to come. We do not want to exploit it the way it has been in other places.
To give an example: in Western Australia, you cannot catch a shark north of Carnarvon and you cannot catch a lobster because, at the moment, the recruitment for lobsters is zero - that means for the next five years there will not be legal-sized lobsters to catch. The government in Western Australia has now expanded the close of season in order to protect the resources.
We have tried that before. We have done all the research and our department has put in place some guidelines and legislation, and is working very closely with the industry. This is the only place in Australia that you will not hear the industry complaining that the department comes and puts on conditions or restrictions, because they know the department has consulted and there is always a scientific reason.
The Primary Industry Group within my department was recently reviewed and has been restructured to such a degree that now people know where they are and know what their focus is. Industry is happy about it, and when industry is happy it does not bug the department, which is very good. I would not feel very good if the industry we are supposed to represent and work with comes and bugs me. That is demoralising. But now people are looking forward, and they are refocused and enthusiastic about what they are doing.
To give an example of how my Department of Primary Industry works. They are not afraid to travel out of the Territory and interstate because they are very well regarded interstate and internationally. I have been to Sabah and I only heard high praise about the department; I have been to the Philippines and the key thing I heard about the Department of Primary Industry was high praise. We went to Vietnam and had a meeting with Vietnamese government officials. We had the opportunity to meet again the next day to work together and develop a protocol, and not one of the officials hesitated, and within 24 hours we had a draft for a protocol which was submitted to the Commonwealth when we came back, and was approved. That is how good the department is. They are not afraid to get their hands dirty.
We have people in the department going to Sabah and teaching people how to establish an abattoir and also how to kill animals, halal, and how to bone and cut the animals in the way western tourists like, and they are very highly regarded. These people have now developed friendships and relationships and exchange information between the Territory and their state, and the relationship is very well advanced.
Yesterday, in reply to my statement to the House, the member for Goyder was rather critical of the department, the public service and its role and how it works when she said, and I quote:
Madam Speaker, allow me to read a letter I received from the Northern Territory Mango Industry Association, signed by Peter Marks, the President, and I quote:
It closes saying:
When the industry comes out with a letter like that, that clearly says the department did an excellent job organising the forum and we thank you very much because now we feel more confident for the future, I do not think I have to stand up and say anything more about my department. They deserve congratulations.
I would like to turn now to the dedicated team within the Department of Racing, Gaming and Licensing and Alcohol Policy. They have a huge task. We know we have problems with alcohol and these people are working very hard. Not only are they responsible for regulating the hospitality and gaming industry, but they are also involved in developing future policies for how we, as a community, deal with the alcohol issues around the Territory. They are a very hard-working bunch of professionals and I thank them for their efforts in making the Territory a better place to live, work and raise a family.
I had a lot to do with the Licensing Branch and the licensing people in my previous life as an environmental health officer, and also in my time as a member of parliament, regarding difficult issues with some of the small supermarkets which were abusing the system. I have to say the licensing people were absolutely helpful, not only to me but to the community, and they work very hard to make sure the system is not abused and people are not selling gallons of alcohol to people it should not be sold to, especially Indigenous people.
In closing, Madam Speaker, we acknowledge and recognise the considerable contribution and commitment of the Northern Territory Public Service. We recognise it and we value the public service, and we are prepared to work together with the public service because the reality is, these are the people on the front line; these are the people who deliver services to all Territorians.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if there was ever any evidence, or any doubt, that this government is in some disarray as to the arrangements in relation to how they operate, surely there is no greater evidence than the fact that the Minister for Public Employment delivers a statement, when it is clear from the website, the department is still under the impression that the member for Karama, the Honourable Delia Lawrie, MLA, is its minister. I urge honourable members to visit the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment’s website, where they will discover the Minister for Public Employment in the Northern Territory is the member for Karama.
If there has ever been an example of puffery in this House, this ministerial statement would have to be it. The reason that I make those comments can be captured by the sometimes Minister for Public Employment’s letter, the Honourable Rob Knight - I am sorry, is he the Minister for Public Employment? No, it is Delia, or whoever - the Minister for Public Employment’s letter to staff which has been addressed to all Northern Territory public sector employees. Whilst I appreciate, from the discussion paper on the website, that this is the result of a commitment given to public servants during the election campaign that there would be a review, this government is not really that serious about it.
I am somewhat struck that this is a little like a scene from a Yes, Minister episode; where the minister is sitting there drumming his or her fingers on his or her desk, impatiently wondering what they can do, when Sir Humphrey walks in and discusses the issue with the minister and the minister says: ‘Well, I am a little worried about being seen to be a good minister and all that sort of thing. What sort of thing should I do, Sir Humphrey?’ And Sir Humphrey dutifully says: ‘Well, you can have a review, minister’. ‘Yes, that is a good idea. I will have a review’, says the minister. That really is the smell and the taste of this.
I draw member’s attention to the letter that went out to public servants, reproduced on the website. It says: ‘Reform and Revitalisation of the Northern Territory Public Sector’. It goes on to say, and I quote:
There is another word for massage, it is manipulation. If one goes to see a chiropractor or a person who deals in the tactile therapies they will refer to massage and manipulation as alternative words. I suspect that particular observation holds true in this environment. The minister continues:
Next couple of years:
It is going to take a couple of years, but the deadline for submissions, according to the website, is the 31 March 2009. What exactly is going to happen between the 31 March 2009 when I can put in my submission, which is in a little over a month’s time, and the next couple of years? It is hardly what you would call a dedicated time-line. ‘Couple’ generally refers to two, and it is used as often as not in the vernacular simply as an approximation. This is not what you would consider to be a top-of-mind issue as far as the minister is concerned: yes, we will get around to it in the next couple of years. Yes, we are going to, let us see, we are going to rejuvenate, reinvigorate and massage over the next couple of years.
There is a philosophical thread which is not consistent or being followed in the minister’s approach. These are platitudes - rejuvenated, reinvigorated and massaged - not clear directions from a minister. These are simply going through the motions because we made a promise in the election period to do something about the state of the public service. That really draws us to where we are at with this. Of course, the government wants to do something about the public service, because in the period leading up to the last Territory election, the public service was in open revolt; well, sections of the public service were in open revolt.
Someone said to me, or made the observation to me this morning: ‘But why would they be doing this? The public service hates them’. And I said: ‘That is precisely why they will be doing this’. It is because they have to start trying to send a signal out to the public service that they are actually doing something to try to improve the level of communication and the quality of service they give their public servants, as leaders. And there is good reason why so many public servants are nervous about this administration.
It started in the early days of this government when the former Ombudsman of the Northern Territory, Peter Boyce, wrote a report about the giving away of a Toyota to an individual in the Belyuen community, using the local Community Government Council as a vehicle to achieve that outcome. For honourable members’ edification, you cannot, as an Ombudsman, criticise a minister directly, so what Peter Boyce did in his report, was he attacked or criticised the public service but made it abundantly clear to anyone who read the report that the trail, the hot trail, led all the way to the minister’s office, and it was actually the minister who had directed the public service to give away a Toyota.
The rumour is, and I assert and remind honourable members that it is only a rumour, but it had something to do with settling the Kenbi Land Claim. However, it is only a rumour and that was certainly not covered by Peter Boyce. The result: all of a sudden the Ombudsman Act was changed and the legislation was changed in relation to the tenure of the Ombudsman. So Peter Boyce, who was an Ombudsman for as long as he chose to be, all of a sudden was on a five and five contract. And, oops, off he went: bye, see you later, Mr Boyce. That is really the way that these guys have operated in the past.
Let us look at another faithful and dedicated public servant to the government of the Northern Territory - Peter Campos, who has been mentioned often in this place. Peter Campos was a faithful and loyal public servant, and I take my evidence for that from the fact that he, even in a coronial investigation, sought to defend the position of the department. For that he was roundly criticised by the Coroner, but in his faithfulness and loyalty to the department, to the minister, he stuck to his guns and, after being criticised, heads had to roll. What actually happened, he was moved sideways in the public service after some extended leave, the details of which I am not sure. He was not a happy camper; he was hung out to dry by the government. But the buck stops with the minister, or should stop with the minister.
The Leader of the Opposition made the observation that there is a habit amongst these ministers to use senior public servants as human shields. That is precisely what happened in the case of the public servant who was ultimately blamed by the minister, Jack Ah Kit, for the gifting of a Toyota to the community of Belyuen. That is precisely what happened to Peter Campos, because he was a faithful and loyal public servant, and I believe that his decisions in relation to the nursing numbers issue at the hospital was as a result of directives from Cabinet or the ministers themselves. It was for that reason that he was not actually sacked, because if he was acting in a frolic of his own, as the minister at the time would suggest or would have us believe, and that he was acting independently of ministerial direction, he would not have kept him on in the public service; he would have fired him.
But he was not fired, the head did not roll, he received the public service equivalent of a shaving cut and he was moved sideways into a position, as I understand it, which carried exactly the same pay and responsibility as his role in the public service. And full well would the minister not say ‘cut him loose’. Why? Because then there would be no driver at all for Mr Campos to remain a good and faithful and loyal public servant; he would have had every reason in the world to be bitter.
In the case of Jack Ah Kit, a public servant was held up to be the human shield. In the case of failings of government in terms of nursing numbers management, a public servant was held up to be a human shield.
Let us talk about educational outcomes, where the educational ambitions of this government have not been met. Does the buck stop with the government? No, the buck does not stop with the government. The then minister for Education, in a most unusual sacking, fired her CEO and put it all down to her that education results were not what the government wanted to achieve. It was not her policy that made those educational outcomes fail; it was the policy of the Northern Territory government, the members opposite who hold ministerial rank, that failed. And who was the human shield? Poor old Margaret Banks, who wept openly when, shortly after being sacked for her incompetence – nominally - was awarded by her peers a very prestigious award in the area of education. Another human shield bites the dust.
This government wants to reassure public servants and encourage them to be open, fearless and frank. If you read the discussion paper, that is one of the elements. They talk about the Westminster system of government and political neutrality, and about a fearless and frank environment for public servants when, in actual fact, public servant seems to be a Latin translation they have on their walls upstairs that says ‘human shield’.
Let us now look at the way nurses were treated prior to the election. Small wonder they were up in arms and utterly disgruntled with what was occurring. The shifts they were being asked to work, the environment they were being asked to work in, and the circumstances they were being asked to work with were all products of poor leadership. The same thing is continuing now. We have two separate reports from the Royal Darwin Hospital Board which report on results and outcomes that show different results for the same period - which was the period 2007-08, from memory.
There are two separate and quite independent hospital board reports for the same period, producing completely different numbers for the same period. Small wonder the public servants who work in that field suddenly find themselves extremely frustrated with a lack of leadership. What happened next? A Director of Nursing fronted her minister at Rapid Creek markets. She sidestepped the chain of command and put her career on the line, and said to the minister: ‘Minister, we have a problem with nursing numbers. You need to know this’. And the minister’s response was? ‘Oh, go and see some senior public servants’.
Recently, we had the extraordinary situation where the Minister for Health, at the time, was again trying to explain away in this House a report from the second Ombudsman - the leftover Ombudsman - the one they employed who has turned out to be the very epitome of independence in the face of, I am sure, great government pressure; but the epitome of independence. She was profoundly critical of what had happened in the department. Yet again, what was the response of the minister? ‘I was misinformed by the department’. This is the second time that same minister had been misinformed by the department, and his answer was to blame the department.
When does the government become responsible for government in the Northern Territory? Surely, if the CEO was actually and actively engaged in misleading the minister or withholding information from the minister, he would have been fired; but he was not. He remains in place now. What does that tell you? It tells you that the CEO of the department, in every likelihood, did nothing wrong but, nevertheless, there was the option: hold up the CEO of the department to be a human shield.
Teachers - how long did the pay dispute go on? ‘Oh, we really respect our teachers. We really respect our teachers’. Twelve months that dragged on – over 12 months. The government’s intransigence in relation to the teacher’s dispute - inflexibility and attitude - was one of the elements which dragged that particular issue out. Small wonder the teachers were up in arms. Small wonder they were running around with placards trying to blockade the Chief Minister’s office in the middle of an election campaign - because they were furious. They were furious at the indifferent and contemptuous way in which they were being treated.
All of a sudden we get this promise from the minister saying, ‘Oh, goodness, it is time to go and review the public service’. I cannot imagine why you would take a different tack; of course you would want to review the public service. You want to send some signal that you have been listening to it. The corpses are piling up around the knees of the government, and the rest of the public service is on the verge of being in open revolt. It is about time you held out an olive branch. But the olive branch is the most lacklustre exercise I have ever seen. All this work will be undertaken over the next couple of years. It is an indifferent piece of language that demonstrates an indifferent attitude from an indifferent government as to how to inspire and to drive the public service onwards.
I pause today to make another observation. I had a question on notice. I do not have the figures in front of me right now, but the question on notice was answered, and I asked how many EOs and CEOs, which are the senior public servants, the executive public servants, are in the Department of Health? If memory serves me, the current figure was 59. I find that interesting because, if that is true, then that accords very oddly with the Chief Minister’s assertion in this place the other day that there are nearly 80 senior public servants, or executive level public servants in the public service. If that is true, if those numbers are actually correct, then the department of Health has three quarters of the executive level public servants in one department, and there are only 20 executives across the rest of government.
I suspect what is actually occurring is the way they are counting these numbers is a little fudged. And to attack the CLP because we want to actually have a look, review, and possibly even shed some of those positions, as being this horrible machine that is out to sack all these public servants, is an absolute misnomer. The sheer inaccuracy of numbers coming out the Chief Minister’s mouth, and answers to questions that we put on notice, are of such fundamental difference that it needs to be looked at. Those numbers will be looked at under a future CLP government, and proudly. We actually believe that many of these senior public servants are very capable people, and they are capable of casting a wider net as well.
We also heard from the minister in relation to the hard-working public servants, and I listened very carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about spin and all those little pamphlets which appear in our letterboxes every day. It is interesting to note that the communications section of Health – this is basically the publicity machine in the Health department – employs one executive officer and nine other staff to produce information, that is glossy brochures, press releases, keep the website going, and those sorts of things. There are essentially ten people in Health whose sole function it is to look after the image of Health. They would be hard-working public servants in this department because they have such a lot of image repairing to do. The process of worrying about image rather than actually worrying about …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the member for Port Darwin be granted an extension of time to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members and I shall not take advantage of the full 10 minutes. What this government is interested in is how they are projecting, and for this reason they have 10 people in a communications department in the department of Health headed up by an executive officer; this is the reason it is all about glossy brochures and press releases, not about substance. It is about slogans like ‘rejuvenated’, ‘reinvigorated’, ‘new era’, all of that stuff - slogans. Why not actually go and do it?
If there is ever an example of dressage; we talk about something dressed up looking like a shopfront. The government is not even hiding it anymore, because if you go to Casuarina Square, a few feet away from the police station they have a shopfront and it is all about image and it is all about demonstrating – being seen to be doing something - rather than doing it. The public are getting weary of being told things are happening, when every day they open the newspaper and read about health outcomes getting worse, education outcomes going down the gurgler, and violent crime is out of control. There is a disconnection in people’s minds between the shopfront and a glossy brochure, something shoved into the letterbox and a full page advertisement in the paper, and the fact that they are getting a smack in the mouth whilst they are walking down the street. If you can address the smack in the mouth, rather than the image, you might actually get more support.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to speak in support of this statement from the Minister for Public Employment. I echo the minister’s support for public servants.
In recognition of that we have the Public Service Medal we present to many public servants over the years. From Alice Springs, I acknowledge, and put on the public record, the extraordinary work John Baskerville has done in Alice Springs over many years. He is one of those gentlemen many of us know in this House. His tireless work and the many years he put into Alice Springs - not only in the Department of Chief Minister, but many of the other agencies in the NTPS - are to be commended.
I also place on the public record my thanks to all of those professional personnel who provide me with support through my various agencies, namely those at the Department of Business and Employment and the Territory Business Centres throughout the region, the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry and Fisheries and Resources and the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport.
In the first or second day in my job as a minister I wanted to go out and meet many of the staff members. It is a little hard in Darwin because many of the staff members are in regions, but I encourage them to be creative and innovative because, as a new minister I rely heavily on the experience and expertise of my agencies. It is important that we think outside the square and I encourage many people in my agencies to think outside the square – to be innovative, particularly with the challenges we face in regional development.
As a minister, I am focused on outcomes and it is all about jobs in our regions – that is the challenge we all face and I face, particularly as a minister. So we cannot go on in the old way. While the public service has been a nursery and groomed many of our young people over the years, we need to think outside the box and be innovative and creative, particularly when it comes to the current economic climate we face. We cannot rely heavily on the mining sector, the public service or other industries that have built the Territory to what it is today, because of the challenges we face. I encourage my department, through my CEO and Executive Directors, to be innovative and creative because that is where the jobs are going to be created in the future, particularly in the regions.
Reflecting on my personal career, I remember nearly 20 years ago I sat an entrance exam for the Australian Public Service. It was the norm for many people in Alice Springs at that time to get a job with one of the main service organisations, and one of the main employers in Alice Springs was the public service, be it the Australian Public Service or the Northern Territory Public Service.. That is where I started in the workforce. Thankfully, I was successful and I obtained an AO1 trainee position in the old Commonwealth Employment Service, the CES. We cannot underestimate the value of the public service sector, particularly in our remote regions, because that is, unfortunately, where many of the jobs are. There is not much of a labour market out there in the bush or in our regions and often the only jobs are in the public service. It certainly got my employment career started and I am sure that many others in the House and many other Territorians can recall their first job being in the public service.
The latest reform of the Northern Territory Public Service began in this new term of government when the Chief Minister made his landmark statement on 18 August 2008. The statement set a new direction for the Territory’s public service and especially for my portfolio of Regional Development. For the first time in the history of our public service, the department was moved from the seat of government to a regional centre. This policy change was about two things - economic development and job creation - but, more importantly, it was about taking the headquarters of a government department into our regions where the Territory’s wealth is created. When this policy change was first mooted we were roundly criticised by members opposite.
I state on the record that the transfer of power from Darwin to Alice Springs has been a resounding success and has been achieved with as little disruption as possible. It would be nice to say it was a seamless transfer, but that would gilding the lily, there were problems and concerns, no doubt about it, but because of the professionalism displayed by all those involved, the new arrangements are all but bedded down.
Alice Springs is not the only beneficiary of this policy initiative, both Tennant Creek and Katherine have received extra positions. I am pleased to announce that Phil Anning, another long-term Territorian and a very commendable public servant, particularly in the agricultural area; a man who has lived and worked many years in the Territory, has been appointed Regional Director for the Katherine office of Regional Development. All positions in Alice Springs have been filled, except for an AO7 position for which applications closed last week, and an AO6 position. A second position for Tennant Creek will shortly be advertised.
This policy initiative has created a much more dynamic department. The staff in Alice Springs, headed up by Fran Kilgariff, now has a much greater appreciation of issues across the whole of the Territory; they are no longer restricted or focused only on Central Australian issues. Conversely, Darwin-based staff are now in much closer communication with the Alice Springs-based staff, the Executive Director and CEO, and the department now enjoys a greater whole-of-Territory approach.
There is another aspect of this policy that deserves some comment. The devolution of power has opened up opportunities for Alice Springs-based public sector employees who want to continue to live and work in Central Australia. Until now, the structure of the Territory’s public service meant that once you reached a certain level you almost certainly had to make the trek north if you wanted to further your career. This no longer applies for this department.
For the record, there are a total of 26 staff in the department of Regional Development: Darwin - 11, Alice Springs - nine, Tennant Creek - three, Katherine – two, and Nhulunbuy - one. That gives us a total of 11 staff based in Darwin and 15, a majority, in our regions. In the future there may be further realignment with staff in regional centres, and that is something I am prepared to do. I am conscious of the fact that in Nhulunbuy they are set to receive more than $123m in SIHIP funding over the next three years. Therefore, resources from this office will be monitored closely as to where the need is.
I was also interested in the minister’s comments on attracting and retaining staff. There are a couple of policy initiatives that I will mention in relation to this. I had the pleasure on Friday, while back in Alice Springs, to present three local people with their apprenticeship scheme certificates. All three are long-term local residents of Alice Springs and, in particular, a young girl, who received her certificate in the NTPS Apprenticeship Scheme in the clerical area, who I have known since she was very small and growing up in Alice Springs.
The other one is the Australian Employment Covenant. The Chief Minister was the first territory or state leader to commit to this employment covenant with Andrew Forrest. Our commitment is 200 jobs for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory Public Service. That is very important, given that our Indigenous population in the Northern Territory is around 30%, but only 7.3% Indigenous people are employed in NTPS. Those two initiatives are very important in providing job opportunities for our Indigenous population, and truly reflecting our population in the Northern Territory.
Members will also be aware of the government’s $34m project, in collaboration with Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan and the Northern Land Council, to lay fibre optic cable across Arnhem Land. As well as the benefits of improving health and policing outcomes, and education and business opportunities, access to high speed Broadband will also help us to recruit and retain public servants to work in communities across Arnhem Land, from Oenpelli to Yirrkala. Access to this 21st century communication technology all but eliminates the tyranny of distance, making life more bearable for those people who work in some of the remotest communities in Australia.
I pay tribute to all our public servants, and I am pleased to support the minister’s statement.
In closing, with regard to professionalism, I also put on the record that it is important to work through the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. It is there to protect our public servants and it gives them the framework they need to carry out their work without fear of favour.
Mr KNIGHT (Public Employment): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank most members for their contribution to tonight’s statement. It was a very important statement, and the members of the public service, all 16 500 of them, are very important to the Northern Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition, obviously, did not think so. He talked about this as just being a weather report. He did not think that the public service needed any reform or revitalisation, as this statement alluded to. He believes the public service can just potter along until the opposition, they hope, get back into office. Woe betide the public service when that happens, because we heard again tonight the inference that there would be changes in the public service. We heard during the election campaign the policy of the CLP to reduce the public service and 700-odd jobs were to go - that is a significant amount. I wonder where those positions were to come from. We have made a huge effort to get more frontline workers so, in reducing the public service, it is quite obvious those positions are in the frame to be axed.
We have put on an extra 162 doctors and 433 nurses since coming to office. That is a huge input into the health service; a health service which struggles with a diverse demographic in the Northern Territory, a very large jurisdiction in very remote areas, and it does an exceptional job. Obviously, with the demographic and the geography of the Northern Territory, the extra 329 police constables, ACPOs and auxiliaries since 2003, have been beneficial to society. As well as that, 300 extra education staff, including 155 teachers - a significant increase - a commitment and confidence this government has in the public sector to deliver to Territorians. Every public servant provides a public service to the community, and that is why it is so very important. The PSEMA has not been reviewed since this government came in, so it is acceptable and appropriate that we do.
We have huge challenges ahead of us with respect to health, education, law and order, and infrastructure throughout the Territory. It is a challenge this government is absolutely committed to and we cannot get there without staff; without the public service. We must cherish them, nurture them, and we must attract the best quality people, so we can deliver that product to residents of the Northern Territory, because if we cannot do that, it will not be possible to provide those services. It is logical and rational to look at strategic human resources plans within the public service, and to straddle that HR plan across the various agencies of the Northern Territory Public Service, look at legislative, policy and governance changes to better gear this sector up for the challenges to be faced ahead.
We have to look at new ways of attracting and retaining our staff. Lifestyles are changing, family units are changing, demands are changing on people and their families, and we have to look at ways of accommodating that and also attracting people into the public service. It is a great organisation and a great sector to work in. I have worked in it for many years and it is something you do not do just for the money. Many public servants go well beyond the hours they are allotted for their work, they travel vast distances and they come into some very tricky and dangerous situations. But they continue to do it, because they know that type of work is beneficial to the community, and I am sure they get personal satisfaction from it.
One of the other important areas I alluded to, which the opposition leader did not think was important enough to even acknowledge, and disregarded this statement’s acknowledgement of in our Northern Territory Public Service, is the diversity within our workforce.
We must try harder to accommodate and attract members of our community who, until now, may have been unable to come into the public service. They provide a valuable contribution that comes with knowledge which, perhaps, normal, mainstream, public servants with contemporary backgrounds do not have. Those experiences need to be acknowledged and those attributes need to be given recognition, and that is what we are doing with the changes to the Northern Territory Public Service. It is very appropriate and sensible, and when you talk about social justice and social inclusion, this is all about that. In any organisation, whether in the private sector or the public sector, the development of your staff is critical.
That is what the statement is about; looking at ways of developing the staff, how we can best get our own homegrown staff, and how to retain and develop people who come into the lower levels of the public service. It takes a long time to know how the Northern Territory ticks, and the history you gain, whilst working across the Northern Territory in different areas, pays rewards.
You can come here with a university degree but the skills and knowledge you get from working in the field is far more important in some ways. Developing our own, who have that history and experience, so they can move up through the ranks within the public sector is essential. We need to build that knowledge because we need to have a public service which is up to contemporary practices within Australia and internationally. It is about best practice, because increasingly the world is getting smaller and global and national matters are coming closer and the Territory has to operate with various agreements or treaties, or whatever it may be. Climate change is a classic example of that. We need to be up-to-date with what is happening nationally and internationally, and you can only do that through developing your staff. It is an obvious area which the Opposition Leader did not think was very necessary.
We must recognise that, during the various ebbs and flows in the economy, professional and technical staff within our public service are sometimes well-off and at other times, are not. We need to recognise ways of attracting and keeping professional and technical staff because we need them to stay in the public sector. During times of economic boom our infrastructure programs grow and we need those people on board to deliver infrastructure programs - it is being innovative, contemporary, sensible and pragmatic within government to do this.
I cannot accept the allegations the Leader of the Opposition made that public servants do not want this reform, or are unhappy with the PSEMA review. I received many comments and contact with people who were excited and wished to contribute to this review. It has been long time since it was enacted and people want to make it more contemporary and more flexible. The public service is coming on board, despite what the shadow Treasurer and Leader of the Opposition said.
This statement is all about acknowledging the hard work our public servants do and putting on the record, that this government is extremely serious about what they do and supporting them to deliver better outcomes for Territorians. The Leader of the Opposition also alluded to the fact that you should just get on with it, you should not consult with public servants about how to better structure the sector, so they can do their jobs better and deliver outcomes the government requires and provide better services to the community. We take a very different approach. We understand that the people who are involved in service delivery at the coalface, at the front line, need to understand the practices they are involved in and need to understand the sector. We will work with those people, we will listen to them and we will come up with a modern public sector which will deliver better outcomes for Territorians in the long run.
I thank members from this side of the House for their contribution. It was very constructive and positive, and I look forward to further outcomes with the reform. I commend the statement to the House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to, the statement noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I received the following letter from the member for Fong Lim:
It is signed by the member for Fong Lim.
Is the discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, thank you. This is a definite Matter of Public Importance - the impact of the global financial crisis on the Northern Territory tourism industry, and I am sure all members in this Chamber agree with that. I would be very surprised if there was a member in this Chamber who was not concerned about what the impact of the global financial crisis will be on our Territory tourism industry. I believe that is absolutely, unanimously supported.
It concerns me that we are, at 8.20 pm, left with a mere 40 minutes to debate a matter of clear public importance.
A member: Well, get on with it!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: It is an absolute joke, and I am putting on the record right now my disgust at the way that this parliament has allowed matters of such importance to languish for so long before proper debate.
I hope that the Minister for Tourism gets to speak because I am very interested in his take on how the global financial crisis is affecting, and will effect into the future, our tourism industry.
The tourism industry in the Northern Territory, it goes without saying, is an extraordinarily important industry for the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory, I believe, is the most beautiful place in Australia and indeed, probably the most beautiful place in the world. It is the reason why I live here. The lifestyle is absolutely fantastic. The people are fantastic. The places to see and the things to do in the Northern Territory are fantastic.
Our tourism industry, the people who run tour operations, who show visitors what we have to offer, showcase our incredible Indigenous culture, and our incredible environment, I believe are some of the best operators in the world. They are world-class and I joined with the minister the other day in congratulating those people in the tourism industry, particularly those who won prizes and awards at the Brolga Awards. They are first class people and their businesses are first class, and we desperately need to be supporting them in tough times.
I believe, and I am sure most people would agree, that the global financial crisis will clearly impact on the Northern Territory tourism industry. How it impacts, I suppose, is yet to be seen, but economies around the world are suffering massive declines in what is being called the GFC. We know that one of our strongest sources of visitors, people from Japan, which I believe was announced to be officially in depression today.
That does not bode well for the tourism industry in the Northern Territory that takes on many Japanese visitors. Similarly, the economies of Europe are also experiencing massive difficulties and not just their economies, but the people who are part of those economies, the residents of those countries. If they do not have the disposable income to travel, it will affect our tourism industry in the Northern Territory.
The concern is, that a drop in numbers of international visitors will greatly affect the Northern Territory because they tend to be some of the biggest spenders of the travelling people who come through, particularly the Europeans, the Japanese and the Americans.
We need to consider what the impact will be with a decline in visitor numbers, and we need to consider how the Territory can best counter the decline in those tourism numbers and support the fantastic tour operators we have in the Northern Territory. I heard the minister make a report this morning about tourism and he talked about declines in visitors from the US since 2001. He said that the peak of tourism in the Territory had been in 2001 and, since 11 September, tourist numbers from America had decreased.
Prior to coming in, I managed to dig up the Territory Tourism Outlook brochure that is produced by Tourism NT, the NT Tourism Forecasting Panel, September 2008 edition report and there is a heap of wonderful little graphs of history of tourism, visitors, visitor nights, visitor expenditure and international, national and intrastate visitor figures. Everywhere you go in this document, whether they are US visitors, international, Australian or intrastate visitors, it is interesting that the year 2001 seems to hold some meaning for all the categories of visitors - not just US visitors.
I asked myself what was significant about 2001. Why have we seen a drop in tourist numbers, both international and national and within the Territory since 2001? What was the big event in 2001 that has seen a constant decline in numbers within the tourism industry? Surely, the plans of people intrastate and Territorians travelling in the Territory would not have been massively affected by September 11 2001. Clearly, in my own mind, there is one major event that happened in 2001 …
Ms Carney: Yes, Labor came to office.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, that affected tourism numbers. The member for Araluen has quite rightly hit the nail on the head - there was an election in 2001. We saw tourist numbers increasing under the previous government, and from 2001 onwards, with the election of that government, things have continually decreased: international tourist numbers, international tourist nights, international tourist expenditures, national tourist numbers, national tourist expenditure, national tourist nights, have all declined - and also intrastate - have all declined since 2001.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Quite clearly, the problems being faced, in relation to the global economic and financial crisis, will be compounded by the current methods the government has unless we can do something to turn that around. That is what is most interesting to me: what can we do to turn the decline in tourism around and support the wonderful tour operators in the Northern Territory?
I am not interested in hashing over the past, or in looking back and saying: ‘All these problems have occurred since 2001’. Let us draw a line in the sand right now and look forward. Let us look forward at what can be done into the future to revive and sustain the tourism industry throughout the global financial crisis and, in the longer term, revive it back to the level it was prior to 2001. That is what we really want to do; let us draw a line in the sand and move ahead.
What can be done to assist tourism operators in the Northern Territory? My first suggestion is that we clean up our streets, because drunks in the streets, parks, vagrants, long grassers, whatever you want to call them, are a blight on our society and they are certainly a blight on our tourism industry.
I happened to be talking to a bus driver the other day who works for a big tourist bus company. I was having a chat to him and asked him what tourists talk about when they are on bus trips. He said: ‘inevitably, whether you are leaving Alice Springs, Katherine, or Tennant Creek, the conversations are always the same: why are there so many people on the streets? Why are all these homeless people drunk in the streets? Why are people begging, bumming cigarettes, and humbugging people?’ That is a turn-off for people.
As Territorians, we have become immune to it because it happens so regularly, and I suppose we can understand why these things happen; why we have these sorts of social problems. But from a visitor’s perspective, this is a very confronting issue. It is very confronting when you are driving in Katherine and the traffic island down the main street is full of drunks and layabouts, people swearing, and fighting amongst each other - the violence has to be a turn-off for any visitor from a developed country. This type of behaviour on the streets of Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Nhulunbuy is just vile. It is vile and we should not tolerate it. We should not tolerate it at all. In talking to tourism operators around the place, this is the biggest bugbear – this is what they want to get rid of, they cannot stand the fact that this sort of thing is on our streets.
The other thing we can do is look at the governments support for tourism infrastructure. This morning, the member for Goyder stood up and explained that there has been very little tourism infrastructure put into Katherine, Tennant Creek, or Pine Creek. There has been a complete neglect of those centres. When you look at trying to revive and reinvigorate regional and remote centres within the Northern Territory, one of the key areas people should be looking at is the tourism industry, because there are spectacular places in those areas. People want to see those places. I have been here for 21 years and it was only a few months ago that I went to Elliott with a good friend of mine. We took our swags and whatnot and I said: ‘Where are we going to camp?’ He said: ‘We will nick into Lake Woods’. I had never heard of Lake Woods. I thought I had been around a bit and …
Ms Carney: I have been to Lake Woods.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sure many people have been to Lake Woods, but I had not been to Lake Woods, and it was a surprisingly beautiful place. I pay credit to the previous Tourism minister, because I know he was doing a bit at Lake Woods. There are a swag of places like that in the Northern Territory, where we could be putting a little progress, where we could create some experiences for people from interstate, overseas and from within the Territory to enjoy.
Marketing campaigns - I know we jumped on the back of Australia, the movie. I do not think the opposition wants to criticise that in any way. I do not know whether it has paid dividends, but it was certainly an opportunity and it was something the government did to market the Northern Territory in conjunction with that movie. But there are a whole range of other areas the Northern Territory government should be looking at.
I suggest, particularly at this point in time, encouraging Territorians to stay in the Territory, to get around the Territory, to have a look at the Territory themselves. These are our tourism businesses. As a parochial person - a person who loves the Territory - now is the time to be thinking about visiting within the Territory and not going on overseas or interstate holidays. Running a good marketing campaign aimed at Territorians, informing them that now, more than ever, the local Territory tourism businesses need our support. Marketing within Australia, I believe, cannot go astray.
The Northern Territory government needs to do more to attract interstate visitors to the Territory. That is how we can go forward. Talking to tourism operators from all centres, the single most pressing issue is cleaning up our streets. This is not solely an issue for tourism; this is an issue for all Territory businesses and all Territorians. Territorians despise the way our streets look. It is not on. The government has an obligation to get in there and do something about cleaning up the streets. My wife cannot go to the shops after 7 pm because she is scared to walk up the street. When the kids were younger we could not take them to the park and use the swings because the park had been taken over by drunken itinerants.
A couple of years ago I was out at Moulden talking to people at a crime forum, asking what their concerns were, and they said: ‘Right here, in this particular park, by 2 pm it is full of drunk people, absolutely off their trees, screaming, fighting, and swearing. The school, which finishes at 2.30 pm, and the school kids come out and 70% of those school kids are not picked up by their parents at the school, they walk through that park’. Every single afternoon 70% of those kids from that school had to walk through that park teeming with drunken itinerants. That is appalling. We need to do more to clean up our streets.
Our tourism operators demand it, our businesses demand it, and Territorians demand it. While that situation exists, we, as legislators in this place, should hang our heads in shame. That is a situation that has gone on for far too long. It preceded this government, I am not laying blame completely at this government, but the fact is, it is incumbent on government to fix the problem, to get out there and sort it out.
I am aware that there are other people who want to speak on this Matter of Public Importance. I did have a few other things to say, but sadly the processes in this joint leaves much to be desired. I am very keen to hear the Tourism minister speak, so I will end my comments now. But there is one thing that I want to leave the tourism industry with: clean up our streets.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for this Matter of Public Importance. Tourism is vital to the Northern Territory, it contributes 6.4% to the Gross State Product, compared to 3.7% for the rest of Australia; and tourism in the Northern Territory is estimated to be worth $1.6bn, in terms of total visitor expenditure, and employs over 17 000 Territorians.
I am not sure whether the member for Fong Lim has had a recent briefing on the history of tourism numbers, particularly since 2001, it is not the doom and gloom that he paints it …
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Overall, there has been growth, as I understand it, in our tourism numbers …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I acknowledge and note that the numbers of overseas tourists have decreased since 2001, and we know the reasons for that. I commend Tourism NT, the Advisory Board, all the employees, and the operators, in particular, who have worked so hard and put the tourism industry in the Northern Territory in a much stronger position than it was in 2001. I believe everyone acknowledges that the industry is actually in a much stronger position and more confident in riding through the tough times that are ahead. There has been a shake out in the industry since 2001, and we are prepared for tough times ahead. As I outlined, I believe our preparations and strategies are sound.
Looking at direct jobs, tourism provided 9.5% of total employment in 2006-07, compared to 7.1% by construction, and only 2.9% by the mining industry. The Northern Territory is more reliant on the tourism industry than any other jurisdiction in Australia. Tourism contributes in some way to all industries in the Territory economy; therefore all the industries are reliant on tourism demand to some extent, especially accommodation, restaurants, pubs and cafes, taxis, hire cars, tour companies, the retail sector and more. That background demonstrates the importance of a strong tourism industry to a strong Northern Territory economy.
The recently announced federal government $42bn stimulus package is very important in supporting the tourism industry in the tough times ahead. It is about keeping Territorians in jobs, and the Australian government’s $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan contains a number of proposals which will directly benefit tourism operators. These include the $2.7bn temporary business tax break, an additional 30% tax deduction for eligible assets, such as computers, and further cash claims of up to $900 for eligible families and workers who, hopefully, as the member for Fong Lim said, will take holidays in the Territory; along with the pre-Christmas $10.4bn economic security package. These boost the discretionary income and will place more dollars in the pockets of Australian consumers; they are the people we are aiming at.
2009-10 will be challenging for the local tourism industry. This is not a situation caused by the industry, a lack of investment by the Northern Territory government, or by any individual or company in Australia; this situation, which will impact everyone across the globe, has been caused by regulatory and policy failures and a culture of greed, primarily arising in the United States.
Whilst the Northern Territory and Australia are not immune to the impacts of the global economic crisis, I believe we are better placed to weather them than many other developed economies. I believe, given our economic fundamentals, it means that Australia’s discretionary spending and spending on tourism is likely to remain higher than in other markets.
The travel market will weaken throughout 2008 and the outlook for tourism over the next few years is poor, there is no doubt about it. Official forecasts for Australian tourism, released by Tourism Research Australia late last year, suggested a 4% decline in international arrivals to Australia, overall, during 2009, and a 0.9% decline in domestic travel. Tourism NTs view is that these forecasts are optimistic, given the continued deterioration and key economic data since the release, and actual arrivals in the year ending September 2008 were already lower than the forecast for the calendar year.
The impact of September 11, the Ansett collapse and SARS on the tourism industry had a flow-on effect on jobs and, I believe, we are better placed this time for the challenges ahead. It was during this time, that I mentioned this government provided an extra $27.5m over three years to Tourism NT, and this has resulted in significant improvements over the past few years. It was also this government that increased Tourism NT’s annual base funding by $10m on a permanent basis.
What we are doing? Tourism NT has developed Global Watch NT on its website as a key resource and reference point for Northern Territory tourism operators to assess and monitor global economic conditions. It provides a summary of current market intelligence, opportunities for operators to consider, upcoming activities, and media articles which may be of interest.
We believe that there has been a shift in what tourists want; they want good value tourism products and that is what we are encouraging industry to provide. This approach has been implemented in the domestic Get CeNTred marketing campaign, which commenced on 7 February and runs into March and April. The total campaign investment for this is $2.2m, consisting of $1.7m of Northern Territory government funds and $500000 of partner funds. We have a solid strategic plan for the tourism industry, which puts us in a good position to face the tough times. We have a five-year plan. The former minister released the second one last year and it provides, I believe, a very good framework for the way forward for our tourism industry.
Last week at the convention centre, I launched the Beyond 2009 online marketing forum in Darwin. Over 200 operators attended and they were looking to build their …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Please pause, minister. Opposition members, if you wish to have a private conversation would you please do so outside the Chamber. I am unable to hear the minister.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the concern is that we have such a lack of time, and the minister is clearly reading a prepared speech, which is fine, but he could do the House a favour and table the speech …
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: … and other people would get a chance to have their say. I am very interested to hear what the minister has to say and I promise I will read his speech …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. The minister has the call. Please continue, minister.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I attended this particular meeting, along with 200 operators and heard the guest speaker, Mr Bernard Salt talk about trends in marketing, what is required, the changing demography, and the changing demands within the tourism marketplace. This forum was well attended and well received by industry, not only in Darwin but also in Alice Springs.
The Centralian Advocate, on 17 February, reported Bernard Salt, in his offering in Alice Springs, saying: ‘Tourism NT is doing all the right things to weather the storm of the global financial crisis’. Bernard works for KPMG, who is a renowned and acclaimed author on demographic trends, marketing, and online marketing. I believe this was a very good forum for operators, and there was much interest.
Today, I met with Mr Grant Hunt who is very well known in the tourism industry, is the former Chairman of Voyages and is now running his own tourism industry. He is Chair of the Tourism Advisory Board and he is also on the Board of Australian Tourism. He advised me that he believes 2009 will be a challenging year, but that it is domestic tourism which will provide the opportunities ahead because of the lower value of the Australian dollar. His advice is that we should be putting resources, in a flexible way, against our domestic tourism marketing to attract those people who otherwise would have travelled overseas. That is exactly what is happening.
I will be meeting with the advisory board on Friday, and I am looking forward to that. I am also going to Alice Springs next week and I will be meeting with tourism leaders there. I will listen to what tourism operators and tourism leaders tell me. This government will provide a flexible and substantial response to support the tourism industry during this global crisis.
There is a lot of regional activity going on and regional areas such as Katherine and Tennant Creek may do quite well next year. They rely on the domestic, self-drive market. We have set aside $400 000 for the drive market and fishing activity in March and April 2009.
The NT Muster is another important activity. It travels to four states and incorporates four trade events. Thirty-nine NT operators will be attending the NT Muster and they will be meeting with many operators, retail agents, inbound operators, product managers, and key trade media contacts; so that is a very important venue.
The Global Kakadu Campaign is a mighty focus and there is much activity in London around the National Geographic shop and its retail store in Regent Street; a lot of billboard activity. We believe that, given conditions worldwide and although the UK is suffering severely as a result of the financial crisis, we can target that market. There is expected to be an increase in aviation capacity this year on the Kangaroo Route of around 8%, fuel prices and surcharges are dropping and passenger loads on aircraft will be under pressure at the regular airline ticket prices,. We believe there is capacity and potential within the UK market. There is an expectation that ticket prices may drop between 20% - 30% this year.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Dr BURNS: This is all relevant, member for Fong Lim. This is important.
This is important information from Mr Grant Hunt, who is well known in the tourism industry, who analyses these sorts of things. He is very experienced and I will listen to Grant Hunt before I listen to you, member for Fong Lim.
There is activity in Alice Springs around Indigenous tourism workshops, which are very important because many people who come to the Northern Territory want to experience Indigenous culture. This is something that market intelligence shows us, that people, Australians as well as international tourists, want to have that experience; and there are more products being developed, both in Alice Springs and the Top End, to enable that to occur.
Territory Discoveries is also seeing increases in terms of inquiries to its website. It had over $30 000 in bookings and inquiries, from click to chat, and another $200 000 in e-mail bookings and inquiries in the month of January 2009. Territory Discoveries is working well.
In summary, yes, we are heading into tough times, but I believe the work of Tourism NT, with the advice of its advisory board, is setting us in the right direction, with the right sort of strategies and a flexible approach, and government will continue to support the tourism industry. As the incoming Tourism Minister, I am keen to meet industry, both in Darwin and Alice Springs, at the earliest opportunity.
I commend the Member for Fong Lim for bringing this matter before the House. I believe I have demonstrated, despite the scoffing from the Member for Fong Lim, that the government is very active, we do have strategies in place, which are well thought out and will be effective strategies to cushion the Northern Territory tourism industry against the global economic downturn.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I am going to start this …
Ms Carney: All you have is five minutes, Pete.
Mr CHANDLER: I have much to cover. I start with a quote from the Chief Minister. It is taken from the draft Northern Territory Parks and Conservation Framework and it is a good statement. From time to time we kick the Chief Minister around, and we affectionately refer to him as Big Bird, but here we go:
You have my vote, it continues:
I quoted this because I listened to the ABC Press Club today, where Australian of The Year, Mick Dodson, referred to the ‘poisonous habit of political spin’, and he referred to all governments in the country having this. It is a wonderful statement: ‘poisonous habit of political spin’. He spoke about symbolic and then practical and meaningful processes and programs, and his suggestion that symbolic recognition was near enough to useless and a ‘poisonous habit of political spin’. I do not want this, like so many things we have from this government, which come into our mailboxes on nearly a weekly basis, where we have many glossy brochures, which I am now going to affectionately refer to as ‘poisonous habits of political spin’.
I have taken this from ABC Online today, where the Queensland tourism minister - and I want to paint a picture here - Desley Boyle, says Virgin’s decision to downsize will have a greater impact on its staff than the travel sector. However, the company says it will ground five planes and could cut up to 400 jobs because of the economic downturn. Will that have a flow-on effect to the Territory? I believe it may. The Queensland Tourism Council said today that the airlines decision to cut jobs and reduce services is a sign of the times.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this member from concluding his remarks. Not a suspension of time; a suspension of standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that suspension of standing orders be agreed to.
The Assembly divided
Discussion concluded.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it now being 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41, the item of business before the Chair is completed. The Assembly does now adjourn.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk recently about what people are wearing in this Chamber, particularly the compulsory dress code of the opposition to wear suits. I thought it would be interesting to take a look back at the history of this topic. I have been up to the old Cabinet room upstairs and looked at some photos of every Cabinet since 1978. The first portrait …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You might learn something, because none of you have been Cabinet minsters. The first portrait includes the Executive of the Letts government, including a very young Paul Everingham, and most of the Executive were proudly sporting shorts, long socks and short sleeved shirts. Further along the wall there is a photo of Marshall Perron in a leather jacket with a T-shirt evident underneath. I believe the best CLP Chief Minister since self-government would not qualify for a place opposite because he would not come up to your dress code. The only suit, in 27 years of CLP government, was Shane Stone in a khaki safari jacket.
There is an old Territory saying: only wear a suit at a funeral, usually as the deceased, or in court, usually as the defendant. The member for Goyder called the Chief Minister a scrubber because he does not wear a suit. Based on the reasoning of the member for Goyder, there are more CLP scrubbers in the Cabinet photos to fill a live cattle export ship in Darwin Harbour. Indeed, the former CLP chief ministers were not only wearing suits, but also ties.
I would like to just read from this memo written by the then Chief Minister, Dennis Burke, dated 18 February 2000, nine years ago to the day. He says, it is brief, I will read it:
Please convey this to your staff.
Signed Denis Burke.
I will table that. Nonetheless, we are aware that Territory rig: a shirt, tie and slacks is the dress code in this Assembly, however, suits are not compulsory, at least not on this side of the House. While suits were never part of the CLP, they are square and centre the uniform of the new Country Liberals. That extension of the Canberra Liberal spin doctors and the North Shore bankers, have made the CLP their branch office…
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I do not mind if the spivs on the other side want to wear suits, I believe it is indicative of a much bigger problem – the wholesale sell-out of the CLP to the Liberals. I might not agree with a lot of things the old CLP used to do, but they used to stand up for Territorians and they were steadfast in that regard, but no more. The CLP’s opposition to the Northern Territory’s $500m share of the stimulus package was a disgrace. It was all for the sake of keeping on the side of a former merchant banker, Malcolm Turnbull. You sold out the Territory. You are a bunch of sell-outs in suits.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I note that the minister just read out that attack, and I am grateful that he did not actually try to wing his way through it because, of course, he would have bumbled his way through. I find it fascinating that this government would stop the business of the House, and stop members talking about the challenges facing the tourism industry, to have some sort of half-arsed crap at the decision of the CLP to wear …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that the four-letter word beginning with ‘c’ and ending with ‘p’, which the member for Port Darwin used, is probably unparliamentarily. I ask him to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I ask you to withdraw please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it. I am fascinated that they would rather engage in this level of political debate when we are trying to stand up and fight for the tourism industry of the Northern Territory. There was much to come from this side of the House on that issue. Tourism operators are worried about what is going on with tourism.
We sought a 10-minute suspension of standing orders, and they refused because they are worried about what we wear. How childish can you possibly become? The hubris of the CLP, which they railed against when they were in opposition, has become their mantle, and they wear it with pride and with a much greater shame than I would ever wear a suit with. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Tourism minister of the Northern Territory would seek not to talk about tourism and, instead, talk about the dress codes of this House.
I do not mind what people wear into this Chamber. We took a decision, by ourselves, to wear suits into this House - and that is it. So what? The tourism operators in this jurisdiction will be fascinated to hear that they have had their important issue silenced and gagged by this government so that they can whinge about the fact that we decided to wear a couple of suits. Big fluffy deal! The arrogance that goes with this, and the abuse of the rights of tourism operators, for the sake of your amusement, is a disgrace.
They should be ashamed of themselves - absolutely ashamed of themselves. Whilst the members opposite sit there and think: ‘Well, this is going to be a nice little trap’, the fact is, okay a trap - big deal, great achievement. How does this protect the tourism operators? I ask the members from Alice Springs on that side of the House: how does this protect your tourism operators?
When was the last time Centre Tours approached the Minister for Central Australia and said: ‘What are the CLP wearing in the Chamber? I am so concerned about that’. When was the last time they approached and asked that question of members from Alice Springs? When was the last time Grant Hunt said to the Minister for Tourism: ‘What are the CLP wearing in the House? Are they wearing the North Shore suits or what?’
For the minister to come in and do what he just did demonstrates how far out of touch they are with what is going on outside this Chamber. If they are so concerned about what we wear in this place, and …
Mr Conlan: I tell you what, you belong - what is the name of the street in Kings Cross?
Mr Henderson: You used to stand up for the Territory, you guys, you do not anymore.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjecting from the Chief Minister. Standing up for the Territory means standing up for tourism operators, not walking in here and using this place, as the little trumped up tyrant that you are becoming, to beat your chest over your own class resentments about whether or not people wear suits.
Mr Henderson: Class resentments?
Mr ELFERINK: Old, traditional class resentment came out of your mouth the other day; your resentment of the people of the North Shore demonstrates that your eye is completely off the ball, sunshine. I am a Territorian and I am proud of it. I have lived here all my life, bar three years, and I can tell you I will continue wearing whatever I like, in spite of what you think. I will also continue standing up for the rights of tourism operators and other businessmen in this town, rather than running the stupid, tripey little games that you guys consider as part of your duty.
If you cannot see beyond this room, then your short-sightedness will condemn you at the next Territory election.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, there speaks the member for Port Darwin, who is definitely more Liberal than Country, and we see that today. The Liberal Party has moved into the opposition benches. They are all more Liberal than Country.
As Minister for Education and Training, I pay tribute to the achievements of Group Training Northern Territory which, this year, celebrates 20 years of operation. I take a moment to reflect on their notable and worthy history. In 1988, Street Ryan undertook a feasibility study to establish group training companies for the Territory. As a result, the not-for-profit training company was born in 1989, with the sole aim of increasing the numbers of apprentices in the Top End of the Northern Territory. At the same time, other group training companies were being established in other parts of Australia. A steering committee was put in place to oversight the establishment, with support from the NT Chamber of Commerce, Unions NT, and the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments.
In the beginning, Top End Group Training had seven apprentices and one staff member. The initial board was started with a $5000 grant and operated out of a small dog-box of an office in the old Mirambeena Resort. The first board members, who most of us know and have had dealings with many of them, were Peter Tullgren, Hugh Crawford, Frank Giavarra, Geoff Raddatz, Dagmar Brautigam, the late Peter Brown, Mick McInerney, Heather Prendergast, and Gus Cattenach The early years, like any new enterprise, were tough, with many long hours and hard work by staff and the board.
In the early 1990s, it opened a part-time office in Katherine, with a focus on pastoral trainees, and by the mid-1990s, the organisation had grown to 110 apprentices, 12 staff - an amazing achievement.
Group Training has chalked up some remarkable milestones over the past 20 years. In 1999, they won the contract for the new Apprenticeship Support Service and developed the only joint arrangement between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in Australia. In the same year, the Central Australian Group Training Company went into liquidation, and the company took over the apprentices, and officially commenced its Central Australian operation. It also opened its first East Arm office to service the apprentices at the Nabalco operation, and officially became known as Group Training NT.
In 2002, its founding CEO, Jenny Belfield resigned, and she was replaced by the enigmatic Mike Harrison, as her replacement on the board. In 2005, Mick McInerney, a foundation board member, resigned as chairman, with local identity, Peter Carew taking over this important role. In 2005, Burridj Group Training collapsed and, as in the Centre, Group Training took on all the local apprentices and reopened an office in Katherine.
Twenty years later, Group Training NT now employs 88 staff with a turnover in excess of $20m a year. It has successful operations in Darwin, Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Alice Springs. It has apprentices and trainees in over 30 communities, four business divisions, 26 major contracts, including many in remote communities, and around 600 apprentices.
It is important that I pay tribute to some important people who have played a big part in the genesis of Group Training. Mr Mick McInerney, chair of the board for 17 years, was granted life membership of Group Training in 2007; Ms Jenny Belfield, the initial manager and CEO, under her 13 year stewardship the organisation grew when so many others failed; Ms Dagmar Brautigam, founding and current director, was recognised for her outstanding service by Group Training Qld/NT in 2005; Mr Brian Hilder, a board member for over 14 years; Mr Don Zoellner, a board member and deputy chair for 12 years; Mr Paul McConnell, 12 years of loyal service; Mr Antony Yoffa, Central Australian manager for 10 years; Mr Peter Carew, current chair of the board, who has provided great leadership for the last five years; and last, but by no means least, Mr Mike Harrison, the current CEO. Mike has continued to grow and strengthen the organisation to its current level. He is also overseeing the commencement of the Group Training Foundation, which provides programs to encourage increased training and participation.
It is also important to mention that late last year Group Training NT won the Training Initiative Award at the 53rd Annual Northern Territory Training Awards, and went on to be announced as winners of the same category at the Australian Training Awards, which were held in Darwin.
Group Training NT is a fantastic Territory success story. It has been an integral part of growing our local workforce and giving Territorians opportunities for employment and training.
I know that everyone here will join me in congratulating them on their 20 years of achievement and wish them well for the next 20 years.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, in the short time I have, I put on the Hansard of the Northern Territory parliament my thanks to a group in Alice Springs called the Responsible Drinkers Lobby of Alice Springs. I do not know all the members of this group, and as far as I can tell, it is an independent group of citizens in Alice Springs.
I know one of its members, however, and that is Alderman Liz Martin, a woman well known to everyone in Alice Springs. Liz undertook an extensive study about alcohol-related issues in Alice Springs and compiled her findings and delivered her report in January. She delivered this report to government ministers and to the Chief Minister’s office in Alice Springs, and local Country Liberals members were provided with a copy as well. It is fitting, I believe, that on the eve of what I am hoping will be a series of really good announcements for Alice Springs, to address a number of issues and to make Alice Springs an even better place, that I refer to the responsible drinkers report compiled by Liz Martin called Enough is Enough: This is What People Think. It was a survey undertaken with a view to getting people’s views on a range of alcohol issues in Alice Springs. It is appropriate and I am quoting from the report, the vision of the Responsible Drinkers Lobby as follows:
I do not have time to go into all of the findings but I will touch upon some of the recommendations. The report, which I am sure most members of government have, outlines the details of how the survey was made, where it went, the questions asked and so on. That information is contained in the report. There are a series of recommendations; indeed, there are a great many of them. I do not have time to go into the detail of each one but, on the eve of what I am hoping will be a series of positive announcements for Alice Springs tomorrow, it is important to put these on the record.
One of the recommendations was an overnight accommodative care centre for youth and children in Alice Springs. That is something worthy of consideration; it is something we discussed at our bipartisan meeting. I am hopeful the government will make an announcement in that regard. I am certain members of government have read this particular recommendation from the report.
Another recommendation the report addressed was a long-term care facility for recidivist drinkers who are beyond rehabilitation - a complex matter - but the prospect of a care facility for such people is worthy of consideration by government.
The report also recommended that the government, in association with the federal government, open a fully-integrated alcohol rehabilitation facility in Alice Springs, with mandatory attendance for third time offenders and access for voluntary admission.
We have talked about alcohol courts in this place, both in this term and the previous one. Both parties disagree on the success of the alcohol courts, but it is fair to say that there is some level of agreement in relation to addressing alcohol issues and providing an extensive rehabilitation service. At least I am hopeful that the government is coming a little more our way in terms of providing such a facility. No doubt in my view, and the view of others, that such a facility is needed in Alice Springs.
In the 55 seconds I have left, I will talk about the recommendation of reviewing and refining the alcohol court. And also the recommendation of a 24-hour manned police kiosk or presence in the CBD Todd Mall area; an eminently sensible recommendation.
Another recommendation is that the government allow takeaway liquor outlets to be open from 10 am to 10 pm. Coincidentally, that is in accordance with Country Liberals’ policy announced late last year. We believe it is worth pursing the idea; let us get it out in the open during the day, instead of at night when it presents problems for the community, the police and those committing crimes as a result of alcohol.
This is ridiculous - five minutes we have been given for these speeches. I wish the government would change its ways because how can anyone make an adjournment in five minutes on matters of such importance? This is bullshit.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I remember the life of a fine Territorian, Father John Leary AM MSC, who died on Saturday 10 January in Sydney. I am very grateful to Father Malcolm Fyfe MSC, the Superior of the Sacred Heart in the Territory, for providing me with notes for this eulogy tonight.
I will complete this tomorrow night.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker I wish to enlighten the House that, from figures that have come to hand, to date Clubs NT has raised over $200 000 in its efforts for the Victorian Bushfires Appeal. That is an absolutely amazing figure.
Further to that, shortly before lunch today, Mix 104.9 Radio House, had exceeded $400 000 for the bushfire appeal. These are the fantastic donations from the Northern Territory people on the northern edge of this great Territory. It is very heart-warming to think that people’s generosity reached deep, not only into their pockets but into their hearts and their souls, to support those who are in a position where they cannot support themselves properly anymore.
I am very proud of schools that have also done their bit. The students have chipped in their pocket money, or however they raised their money; many schools had fundraising days where they have exceeded thousands of dollars per school. It is amazing that, off their own back, the children of the Territory - the future of the Territory - have shown such great leadership and compassion to those less fortunate than themselves.
I go now to New Zealand, to my own daughter’s school. My daughter, Jasmine Emily Bohlin, is eight and she was proudly telling me with great enjoyment and anticipation that this Friday her primary school in Auckland, Meadowbank Primary School, will be doing a mufti day, where the kids can donate an amount of money and can wear whatever clothes they like. I am very proud of my daughter showing her Aussie spirit in another country, and I am very proud of her school; that they can reach out across the sea to help the people of Australia.
It has affected many people, and around the world people are showing great compassion. It really is heartfelt for me, and if we could only express that to the people in need on the ground, so they know that everywhere in Australia they are supported. Unfortunately, we now have other disasters happening throughout Australia with floods in New South Wales, the ongoing and extensive floods in the outer reaches of the Northern Territory and into Queensland, where communities in Queensland have been isolated for many weeks already and look to be isolated for another six weeks from the last report, if memory serves me rightly.
Although the focus is on Victoria, the people of Queensland and other areas are not forgotten, and their isolation will be remembered in the future. I hope they can hold on and get everything they need to be able to rebuild their lives throughout the eastern side of Australia.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is an unfortunate time and tonight highlights the reasons why we have to change the five-minute adjournment. I knew Father Leary. I knew him very well. To have a eulogy cut off, because there is not enough time, is a disgrace. I appreciate Madam Speaker reading the eulogy. She did it with great understanding of a very important person, a pioneer in the Territory, someone who many people loved and someone I have a close affection for.
This is a classic example of why this system is silly. We really have to review it. And on the other side of it, we cut off the debate on tourism because we now have this ridiculous idea of finishing at 9 pm. 9 pm? It is now 9.20 pm. I mean, big deal! What is wrong with going until 11 pm? I know some people want to go home, and it does help some of the staff, but we only sit for a few days a year, basically. Let us use that time well. It is an important debate and I am going to use some of that time in a minute, because that is about all I have left, to talk about tourism.
I make a note - but also I do not want to make my few minutes overly negative – that the Chief Minister, during his adjournment debate, was talking about awards in schools, and it reminded me, when I picked up the paper this morning, that I found the Northern Territory Board of Studies Students Awards. I did not even know that was on. For many years the government has given members of parliament an invitation to those awards. They are not political awards and they have always given me a chance to meet families from my area, or people I have known, and to congratulate those young people who have achieved things.
This is one of the first times I have seen Taminmin High School mentioned. The Taminmin High School Award for Australian Computer Society Information, Processing and Publishing went to Lan Nguyen of Taminmin High School. I had no opportunity to see him. I know Christopher Miler because I know the Miler family from Daly River; he also plays, I believe, football for Southern Districts. He is studying at Kormilda College and he received a Certificate of Merit. I had no opportunity to go and say congratulations - what a fantastic achievement for a young bloke from out bush.
I ask the government: why it has not given invitations to members? I did not get an invitation and I asked others if they got invitations. Why did we not get invitations to something that was common practice, even courtesy, so we could all, as a group of parliamentarians, congratulate our young people? It is not all about politics, surely. Going to the Northern Territory Board of Studies Student Awards is beyond politics, but that is the impression one gets, and I am very disappointed. I hope the Chief Minister can answer that tomorrow sometime, because I think it is something that needs changing.
My one and half or two minutes left are about tourism. I will try to summarise it and prcis it. Basically, I was going to put in a contribution which said: there is local tourism; there is on-the-ground tourism which will be affected by these changes. In my area, we have things like Windows on the Wetlands; Djukbinj; the Territory Wildlife Park; Litchfield National Park; the Jumping Crocodile - we have a whole range of great tourist attractions. They attract people to the rural area, people passing through the rural area stop to get a drink, fill up with fuel; they are the things we also have to remember. Not everything is about the big picture.
I wanted to look at how it affects local employment, local industries, and I wanted to see whether we could work out ways of encouraging people - in these times when international visitors are dropping off - from interstate, to make sure the downturn in tourism does not affect employment, especially in my area, to any great extent. That is what I wanted to debate.
I believe the system is not the right system. I say to members of the parliament, please consider changing this, because I do not think it is a good way to show what parliament is about to people in the Northern Territory.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak about an interstate trip I took late last year, as it appears to be a topical subject at the moment. My journey started last year while visiting the proposed Arafura Resources’ Nolan’s Bore rare earths mine site north of Alice Springs. That research visit revealed the possibility of an ore processing plant being constructed, in South Australia or Darwin, and with that processing plant, an Incitec Pivot chemical plant. Hearing that, I immediately wanted to know more about the program, how it operated, and what associated risks were involved, particularly from an environmental perspective.
On returning to Darwin, I began an investigation which culminated in an opportunity to visit the Incitec Pivot sulphuric acid plant in Mount Isa, Queensland. The reason this particular plant was chosen was because of its close proximity to a major urban area. The plant was similar to one that would be constructed in Darwin should the company choose Darwin over South Australia. The visit to the plant was extremely eye opening. In Mount Isa’s case, the plant has had a substantial and positive impact on the air quality, removing dust and dangerous chemicals which would otherwise go straight up the stack at the neighbouring mine.
The Incitec Pivot plant pipes waste from the mine smelters and removes dust and chemical residue processing sulphuric acid. As I have already said, these chemicals would otherwise be released into the atmosphere over Mount Isa, so the plant provides a real benefit by converting or using waste to produce a by-product, at the same time improving the air quality for the residents of Mount Isa. My interest focused around environmental issues including safety measures and systematic programs, including redundancy systems. The bottom line is: should a similar plant ever be constructed in or near Darwin, I wanted to know the full impact of such a development.
This trip was invaluable and the information will greatly improve my understanding of this particular area. I also thank Incitec Pivot management for providing me with the opportunity, and also for their openness when it came to answering my many lay person-style questions.
It has become quite evident in the last few days that, unlike government ministers, any trip undertaken by a shadow minister appears to face public scrutiny. When planning this trip, I deliberately set out to value-add by visiting a number of areas focusing on my portfolio responsibilities. Perhaps, in hindsight, this was my mistake, if only for the perception it created. However, I stand by my decision, as the additional experience of visiting south-east Queensland, to better understand the major water resources issues - visiting Hinz Dam and spending time with the CEO, and Mr Cameron Kerr, the General Manager of Life Sciences and Environment Education at Taronga Park Zoo in Sydney, before returning to Darwin - was both invaluable and thought provoking. Apparently, paying for and taking my family on part of that research journey was my undoing.
There is a strong link both professionally and personally between the Alice Springs Desert Park and Taronga Park Zoo with Gary Fry, the manager of the Alice Springs Desert Park, having completed his training at Taronga. The Taronga Park Zoo, and its larger annexe in Dubbo, the Western Plains Zoo, have many synergies with our own Desert Park. Further, the experience provided by Taronga staff was invaluable, particularly regarding government processes, regulations, red tape, basically, and the agreements many zoos and wildlife parks have around the world.
One problem facing many zoos and wildlife parks today is the limited scope available in regard to reproduction. This requires zoos and wildlife parks to transfer animals between parks, including parks and zoos overseas such as the San Diego Zoo, to assist in introducing new strains and genetic structures which, in the wild, is a natural phenomena, but with animals kept in captivity the species would die out or develop genetic defects if allowed to continue to mate within the same group.
Another major issue, affecting zoos and wildlife parks, is their relationship with environmentalists and welfare groups, although much work has been done to improve those relationships, as the understanding of zoos and wildlife facilities and the bigger picture is becoming clearer. In closing, it should not go without saying how important volunteers are to this industry.
My research trip has provided newfound knowledge and experience which I know will assist in my role as an MLA and future minister.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Palmerston High School students, accompanied by Mrs Tania Tamotai and Mrs Beryl Brugmans. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Free Public Bus Services
Free Public Bus Services
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, all of us in this House and across the Northern Territory have been deeply affected by the tragic bushfires in Victoria. Territorians from all walks of life have dug deep to raise funds for the victims of those fires. We are being asked to do so again this Saturday at the Victoria Bushfire Victims Concert to be held at the Darwin Showground.
I am pleased to announce that the government will be supplying free bus travel to attend the concert. Free travel from the Casuarina Exchange will run at regular intervals and there will also be free travel on the normal Route 8 buses from the Palmerston and Darwin Exchanges. These three bus services will also assist people to get home safely and reduce the number of cars on our roads. I urge as many people as possible to use these services on Saturday and to raise money for the Victorian victims.
The Northern Territory government will also be providing free buses to and from the national Rugby League game being held at Richardson Park, Ludmilla. Services to the Cronulla Sharks versus Gold Coast Titans match this Saturday will be at regular intervals starting from Casuarina, Darwin and Palmerston interchanges. Departures to the match start at 4.30 pm, picking up at bus stops along the route. Buses will depart after the game at 9.15 pm at regular intervals.
Apart from the boost this will give to attendances at the Bushfire Appeal concert and the Rugby League game, it is part of an increased commitment to use public transport by this government. From 1 January this year, seniors, pensioners and carers have enjoyed free bus travel across all public bus routes. Free buses for Territory students came into effect at the start of this school year.
The Henderson government is the first government in Australia to provide free travel on all existing bus services for seniors, pensioners, carers and students. These groups are frequent users of our bus network as they often have limited access to cars and other transport. Seniors and students often feel the pressure of the cost of living, and free bus travel has cut their living costs and encouraged them to get out and about. It now allows these groups to attend sporting and cultural events far more easily.
For seniors, it makes life much easier to go shopping, visit friends and relatives and get to health care appointments. For students, it makes it easier to attend after school hours sporting, studying and cultural events, and to get home again.
I am pleased to advise that the community response to this initiative has been fantastic, with noticeable increases in the use of bus services by seniors and students; in some cases buses are filling to capacity. Free bus travel means more money in the pockets of our seniors; the Territory already has the most generous pensioner concession scheme in the country. This initiative makes it even better. It means more money in the pockets of Territory families during these tough economic times. This measure has additional benefits to the whole community, it means fewer cars on our roads and a subsequent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Henderson government will also be providing park and ride facilities in the Darwin rural area. Again, this will mean fewer cars and less greenhouse gases, and a saving for Territory families.
This government is providing more buses, more routes and more services; delivering real results.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. We are all deeply saddened by the Victorian bushfires which have occurred, and it shows great community spirit to see so many people supporting initiatives to donate money to Victoria. It is a good initiative of the Northern Territory government to provide free bus services to the concert and the NRL game between the Cronulla Sharks and Gold Coast Titans. It is unfortunate that Parramatta is not playing, otherwise I would have come up for the game.
The free bus travel for seniors, pensioners, carers and students is a good initiative. I recognise it has been free for some time with the broken ticketing machines, but to provide seniors and others this free travel has been a positive. Many people in my electorate have found it very positive. There has been some negative feedback regarding the way people can receive reimbursement for tickets that were already purchased, but that is another matter. There are two key issues to point out. One is we must ensure that it is safe to travel on buses. We know in the Northern Territory travelling on buses is not always the safest; either for passengers or drivers. Even the bus drivers’ union will talk about instances when they have not been safe and how the government is not responding to improve their safety concerns.
It is important to provide these free bus initiatives to functions such as the NRL game to try to reduce the number of cars on our roads and so people do not drink and drive. It may also support climate change, as the Minister for Transport said, but it is more important to reduce our road toll, because the road toll we had last year was absolutely devastating. While the road toll in every jurisdiction in Australia was going down, the Northern Territory’s was sky rocketing - 75 people died on our roads last year because of inaction by this government; failure to test people for drink-driving on the roads, and failure to get police out there. What happened on our roads last year was absolutely devastating, and you should hang your heads in shame at the road toll in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I congratulate the government on its move to allow seniors and students to have free bus travel. The more we can encourage people to use public transport the less pressure on our roads. We keep building bigger roads, but we do not use public transport as well as we should. I congratulate the government for that.
In relation to the Bushfire Council’s concert and the NRL match, it is great to see there is a free bus service; however, the rural area has been left out. We are occasionally looked at when it comes to the V8s, but we are not all rev heads and sometimes we like Rugby and concerts. I ask the government to consider extending the free bus service, for that particular concert and venue, into the rural area, because rural people would also like to travel safely in and out of town.
A park and ride system is a good initiative of the government. We need to see a little more detail. It is unfortunate that there were some changes at the Noonamah district centre recently which did not include the park and ride changes announced during the election. Unfortunately, the new facilities to improve the area for buses to move through, have taken out a large number of car parks that people used - believe it or not - for catching the bus, especially the bus to Batchelor College and to some of the mining developments in the area. The government needs to bring on that park and ride much faster.
Of course, there is my favourite subject: not everyone wants to travel by bus. The good people of Palmerston and Darwin can actually travel safely by bike; there is a great bicycle network. For at least 10 years I have been asking the government to extend the bicycle path system down the old railway line into Howard Springs, then to the Arnhem Highway and beyond. We do not have one inch of bitumen. We were promised last year, led by the local member in Palmerston to the then minister for Transport, who said we would have a bicycle path from Palmerston to Howard Springs. If you go out there now you will see nothing has happened. I hope that will be changed …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their responses and their wisdom. Member for Braitling, that is a great comment about good old Parramatta, I will take that up with the minister. I will seriously recommend that they play Canterbury Bankstown and we can sit together in the stand.
I am pleased to say that safe travel on buses is recognised as a good and positive initiative across all electorates. I take on board that positive comment regarding safe travel on buses and I thank you for that. I will definitely be researching that area. Events and public transport initiatives are a good connection.
The Member for Nelson spoke of public transport and less pressure on our roads. I agree. Also, the park and ride detail. I am very interested in the concept of supporting public transport initiatives and I will be researching that.
If everyone could promote the bushfires appeal at the Darwin Showgrounds this weekend within their electorates, that would be great.
G’Day USA Australia Week
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I report on the Northern Territory government and Tourism NT’s support of G’Day USA Australia Week, held between 13 and 23 January 2009.
Now in its fifth year, this is the largest single annual foreign country promotion in the United States. The objective of our attendance, for the first time, was to raise the Northern Territory’s profile within North America; Australia’s vitality as a place to visit, to do business, showcasing trade and investment, food and wine, film, arts, fashion, lifestyle, and Indigenous culture in tourism was highlighted.
A significant $80 000 commitment was made by the Northern Territory government this year to capitalise on the increased awareness of the Northern Territory through Australia the movie and a focus on Indigenous Australia. Tourism NT used these themes to highlight the spectacular natural landscapes, Indigenous culture and Australia’s outback experiences.
Running parallel to the main events, for the first time, was G’Day USA Australia Week and Toronto 2009 in cities across the USA and Canada. A total of eight Indigenous operators attended the successful roadshow, with the Northern Territory supported by Rob Mills from Batji Tours and Kakadu Culture Camp’s Andy Ralph, his wife, Jenny Hunter, and their young daughter, Catherine, who was a hit with the Americans.
Five other operators, with strong Northern Territory product offerings, attended the G’Day USA events, including The Ghan, Voyages, AAT Kings, the Orion and Discovery Eco Tours. Meetings were held with two high profile art collectors in New York to investigate new opportunities for NT art to be profiled, along with an emphasis on promoting the wonders of Indigenous cultures in locations around the Territory.
A partnership with the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, the AWC, focusing on Pungalina and Seven Emu Stations on the Northern Territory border of the Gulf of Carpentaria, culminated with a dinner in New York, with over 300 wealthy wildlife enthusiasts interested in helping the AWC convert this remote area into a conservation reserve, with the support of the traditional owners of the area. The key message at the philanthropic dinner was that the Northern Territory is one of the last untouched wildernesses in the world and assisting the AWC to buy these stations is a worthwhile project. We believe around $600 000 was raised on that night. Importantly, Tourism NT hosted some very high profile media and travel guide guests, including a National Geographic TV producer and a Time magazine journalist.
The Northern Territory government also supported Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu to perform during many of the events at G’Day USA, including Carnegie Hall, with other highly acclaimed musicians, including Jimmy Barnes, with a one-off show Australia Plays Broadway. I understand that Geoffrey was an outstanding success, as Americans appreciate his tremendous musical talent. Listening to the reaction of the crowd made the Northern Territory delegation feel very proud of the high calibre of our Indigenous culture and Geoffrey’s amazing talent.
Strategic meetings were held with Qantas, the Australian key North American wholesalers and Aussie specialist travel agents to discuss predictions of future demand and pricing for the Northern Territory. Perhaps a highlight of the discussions was the outcome of the Tourism NT initiated Outback Airpass Campaign - Fly Free to the Outback. When tourists arrive in Australia, they can fly into Alice Springs, Yulara and Darwin at no extra cost. In six weeks, the promotion produced 2815 leads, 230 passengers booked to the Territory to date, and many more bookings to be confirmed. The campaign has been such a success that a second wave will occur later this month.
In summary, attendance at G’Day USA by my predecessor, the member for Casuarina, was important and timely. The USA is the fourth biggest market for the Northern Territory, delivering approximately 33 000 visitors last year. Despite decreasing visitation levels since the heyday of 2001, in other words, prior to September 11, the forecasts are now indicating a potential 1% increase compared to the decreases in many of our other source markets.
Madam Speaker, the North American market has been amazingly resilient in this current global economic climate, and I look forward to keeping the House informed of how this and other markets develop over the next few months.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the Tourism minister for his statement. It is always good news when we hear about promotion of the tourism industry, not only for the Northern Territory but for Australia, and the commitment by the Northern Territory of $80 000 is good news indeed.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms PURICK: However, what is still concerning, from the Northern Territory’s point of view, is that the tourism industry, being one of our key economic drivers, is not receiving as much support from government as it needs. In the township of Katherine, there has been no new infrastructure facilitated by the government or industry; in Pine Creek there has been nothing new built there since this government has been in power; and in Tennant Creek, there has not been any real new infrastructure there to boost and promote tourism.
I know Jabiru is complicated regarding its leases and landholding; but what has the government done regarding further promotion of Jabiru? It was the federal Labor government that reintroduced park fees into Kakadu, so that is a disincentive. If locals want to go and have a look that is okay, but all the tourists who are coming into the Northern Territory and want to visit Kakadu will now have to pay a park entrance fee.
There has not been much commitment, although we are working with the minister for Environment, regarding the Howard Springs Reserve, which does need some major infrastructure improvements, as does the Berry Springs Reserve. They are both Territory identity places, for locals and tourists alike, and I would like to see more commitment and support go towards those two very enjoyable venues. Another area where this government is lacking is regarding our homegrown film industry. They do give a little support to the industry, but it is only tokenism and never enough. It is through the film industry that we can showcase the Northern Territory.
It is good to get tourists here, but our airlines are a little hit and miss and this government has not done much to stabilise flights in and out of the Territory.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for her general support of this particular initiative. The member for Daly has pointed out the support this government gives within the Katherine region to tourism bodies and to tourism infrastructure. I am aware that some of the infrastructure within Nitmiluk has been supported by this government over the years.
In terms of films, this government initiated the Northern Territory Film Office; there was never one under the CLP. I know that there are some film operators in the Northern Territory who are dissatisfied when government supports a major production like Australia, but I believe that does reap benefits in the longer term for our tourism industry and for business generally in the Northern Territory.
After the sittings, I am looking forward to engaging more with the tourism industry, and I will give further reports to this House.
Youth Round Table 2009
Ms McCARTHY (Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to inform the House of the appointment of the 2009 Youth Round Table. The Youth Round Table is a program that gives young Territorians the opportunity to speak directly with the Northern Territory government about issues that impact on their lives. It enables the government to better understand the issues affecting young Territorians in their communities and work towards achievable solutions.
This year's members represent a diverse mix of young students, workers, carers, parents, volunteers, and entrepreneurs; all leaders in their own right, with the capacity to offer different and unique insights into issues. This years appointees are: Jessica Cunningham from Nhulunbuy, Ethan Woods-Alum and Justin Heim from Katherine, Rebecca Healy from Tennant Creek, Cindy Schultz from Alice Springs, Nicole Shotton from Douglas Daly, Rebekah Raymond and Craig Pettifor from the Darwin Rural area, Sharah Lyons from Palmerston, Honeylyn Lisson, Robert Pullino, Elise Moo, Steven Pedlar, Larnie McClintock, Felicity Wardle, and Luke Philips from Darwin.
The first meeting of the 2009 Youth Round Table will be held on the 21 to 22 February. I look forward to working with the 2009 Youth Round Table and hearing their recommendations to assist all young Territorians. I am sure all members join with me to congratulate the 2009 Youth Round Table on their appointment.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms McCARTHY: I also place on the record my appreciation for the hard work undertaken by the outgoing 2008 members. Their dedication to their peers and to making a difference to the lives of young Territorians is admirable. The 2008 Youth Round Table investigated topics which included youth perspectives on climate change, programs to promote health, mind, and body, mental health websites, Rural Rokk Youth Engagement project, and youth perspectives on school attendance and retention. The government is currently considering all recommendations and will provide feedback to the 2008 Youth Round Table on the outcome of this. Their work was an amazing effort and they should be incredibly proud of their efforts.
The members consulted with over 1500 young people last year. I encourage the 2008 Round Table members to continue to be active in their community to create positive change. I am always heartened to see young people focused on finding solutions and developing positive outcomes.
Another exciting series of events for young Territorians will begin shortly with the 2009 National Youth Week. As many members would be aware, this is an annual event designed to highlight and celebrate youth across Australia. This year’s National Youth Week is based on the theme ‘Make a Move’, and will be held from 28 March to 5 April.
Thirty grants have been awarded across the Northern Territory for National Youth Week. A wide range of activities such as concerts, expos, workshops, and camps will be available for young people.
The amount of grants awarded this year is $51 000. There is an excellent regional spread across the Territory – six grants in Alice Springs, two grants in the Barkly Region, eight grants in Darwin, three grants in East Arnhem, four grants in Katherine, two grants in Palmerston and rural, three grants across the Top End remote, and two grants in western Arnhem.
A complete list of National Youth Week events will be posted on the web site www.youth.nt.gov.au in March. I encourage all members to go along to their local National Youth Week events and join in the celebrations.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I support this statement and recognise the importance of supporting young people in our community. Young people are very discerning and they can detect tokenism or the real thing. We must make every effort to ensure that our support for youth leadership is genuine and if we ask them questions that we listen to what they have to say and make a genuine effort to engage and implement those suggestions and provide feedback. The one danger is setting up these things to create an effect, rather than to use this to genuinely engage with young people.
I offer some suggestions: first, acknowledge those who have been named. I have gone through the names and I know some of them. I wish you all the very best. We bring our support, from this side of the Chamber, to your endeavours in bringing a voice to matters of concern to all Territorians, particularly the young. Also, for those outgoing, we acknowledge their service, and some who are continuing on.
One of the highlights, in my nine years in the parliament, is the Youth Parliament. I believe there is an opportunity for us to consider the issue of developing youth leadership. There is the Youth Parliament, the Lion’s Youth of the Year, which is another tremendous exercise to showcase and develop young leadership, and the Round Table.
I want to see some coordination between these three endeavours because by themselves each is struggling. Leadership shown from government could provide a greater level of coordination with those endeavours between those three different sections. Do not forget the Student Representative Councils and the young people who have been supported by the school communities; they play a very important role as well.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement. I support what the Leader of the Opposition said: the Youth Round Table and the Youth Parliament are good opportunities for young people to have a say. Taminmin High School is now like a leadership academy, which I think is a great innovation in the rural area.
I believe we should be encouraging many young people to have a say. I take up the point to ensure that it is not tokenism. If we bring out glossy brochures saying we have all these people talking about various subjects, then they move on and next year we have another group. I ask: ‘What effect did it have? Was there any effect on us as older people? Do we take any notice of what they say, or is it just something nice to tell people that we have a Youth Round Table or a Youth Parliament?’
I enjoy the debates in Youth Parliament, especially; there have been some great debates. Sometimes, the leaders have been from the rural area, which seems to breed leaders at times; it may be because they have a bit more freedom out there to say what they like. However, it is a good occasion for young people to express themselves.
Also, getting out in the community is a really important thing. They held ‘Rural Rokk’ last year. We do not get many things like that in the rural area. Young people organised it and it was a fantastic day. There were bands - some of the music, I do not believe my mother would have liked and I was not that keen on it either - which the kids loved. There was graffiti art, I use the word ‘art’ with inverted commas, but there was a graffiti art competition. There was also a skateboard competition. There is this great skateboard facility at Humpty Doo. This event was organised by youth from the Youth Round Table - that shows leadership. That is the on-the-ground stuff we need to see come out of the Youth Round Table.
Ms McCARTHY (Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their thoughts. Yes, member for Nelson, the Rural Rokk was excellent. I was very impressed with the couple of young people who put that together. They showed what can be done with skills they learnt through the Youth Round Table and networking.
To the Leader of the Opposition, the Youth Parliament is incredibly important. This is an opportunity for young people to engage in the political system. I remind members who are on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that the Youth Round Table played a game of soccer with us. That kind of interaction is equally important as the academic side of what they are learning; having the chance to interact in an environment which is fun. I will pass on those thoughts to the young members who have left, and encourage the new members who come on board this year.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
JUSTICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 34)
(Serial 34)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various acts that fall within the Justice portfolio, and one act within the Police portfolio.
Acts amended in this bill include the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act, the Police Administration Amendment Act 2007, the Summary Offences Act, the Public Trustee Act, the Legal Profession Act and the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. I will now outline the amendments to each act contained within this bill.
The Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act is amended to clarify the effect of disqualification often adjudicated on grounds of conflict of interest, and to ensure that the disqualification of an adjudicator will not unfairly prejudice persons subject to the time limits imposed by section 28 of that act. The act provides various grounds upon which action may be taken for the disqualification of an adjudicator. An adjudicator may give notice of disqualification themselves, or the Registrar may declare the adjudicator disqualified. The parties to the dispute then have five days in which they may elect to authorise the adjudicator to continue in the role, despite the grounds of disqualification.
However, the status of the adjudicator during this five-day period was unclear. The amendments will clarify where a notice is given by the appointed adjudicator that he or she is disqualified from adjudicating the dispute. Where notice is given by the Registrar that the adjudicator is disqualified, then the adjudicator’s appointment will terminate five working days after the date of the disqualification notice. This is unless, before the end of that five-day period, each party has given written authority to the adjudicator to continue as the appointed adjudicator.
If the appointment of an adjudicator ceases after the five-day period, the applicant can reapply for adjudication under section 28 of the act. In calculating the period within which this application may be made, the period from the date on which the previous application was served under section 28(1)(c) to the date when the adjudicator’s appointment ended is not to be counted for the purposes of the 90-day time limit to apply to have a payment dispute adjudicated. If, in calculating the period to reapply under the new subsection (6A)(b), the applicant does not have at least 14 days to make further application, then the applicant will be deemed to have 14 days after the date on which the adjudicator’s appointment ends to make a further application.
The Police Administration Amendment Act 2007 amended the Summary Offences Act by increasing the penalty for the offence of making a false report to the police in section 68A from a $500 fine or three months imprisonment, to a $200 000 fine or 10 years imprisonment. This amendment did not commence pending a review of the penalty. The increased term of imprisonment under the 2007 amendment would result in the offence no longer being considered a summary offence. As such, if the penalty were to be retained, the offence would need to be moved into the Criminal Code.
Research into penalties for false reports in other jurisdictions showed that there are significant differences around Australia. However, in consultation with the NT Police, it was recommended that the appropriate maximum penalty be two years imprisonment and/or an $11 000 fine. The offence therefore remains a summary offence, which is more appropriate given the nature of the offence. The Police Administration Amendment Act 2007 is amended in this bill by repealing the increased penalty provision, and a new maximum penalty of $11 000 and/or two years will be inserted in section 68A of the Summary Offences Act.
Amendments are also made to the Public Trustee Act. The Northern Territory Treasury advised that all ongoing fees and commissions directly charged by the Public Trustee are considered agency revenue. As such, these monies should be receipted directly through the cashier. Taking this action causes the Public Trustee to be technically in breach of section 14(3) of the Public Trustee Act. The section requires all commissions, fees, charges, levies and expenses charged under the act be paid into the Public Trustee’s Dividend Account. In practice, the only fees currently paid into the Public Trustee’s Dividend Account are those collected under sections 24A and 28 of the Public Trustee Act, being management fees and levies. All other commissions, fees and charges are receipted as agency revenue through the cashier. This bill amends section 14(3) of the Public Trustee Act to require only those fees and levies collected under section 24A and section 28 of the Public Trustee Act to be paid into the Public Trustee’s Dividend Account.
The Legal Profession Act is also amended by this bill. By way of background, under the Legal Practitioners Admission Rules, which were appealed in 2007 and replaced by the Legal Profession Admission Rules, an applicant for admission as a legal practitioner was required under Rule 10 to provide an affidavit in support of their application. The applicant was required to state that they have not been found to have engaged in academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism or where he or she has been found to have engaged in academic dishonesty, required to provide details of that dishonesty. The current Legal Profession Admission Rules also require an affidavit from applicants for admission; however, the affidavit must now address ‘suitability matters’ listed in section 11(1)(b) to (m) of the Legal Profession Act.
The list of ‘suitability matters’ contained in section 11(1)(b) to (m) does not include the previous requirement relating to academic dishonesty. The pro forma affidavit in support of an application for admission, however, still requires the information. This requirement should be clearly reflected as a ‘suitability matter’ in the legislation. As such, this bill amends section 11(1) of the Legal Profession Act to reflect Rule 10(1) (b) of the Legal Profession Admission Rules. This requires that an applicant for admission as a legal practitioner must submit an affidavit stating that the applicant has not been found to have engaged in academic dishonesty such as plagiarism, or if he or she has been found to have engaged in academic dishonesty, to provide details of such dishonesty.
This bill also amends the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act to enable application of sections 26 and 27 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth) (the Mutual Assistance Act). Sections 26 and 27 of that act allows for the transfer of federal or state prisoners to a foreign country for the purpose of giving evidence in a proceeding or providing assistance to an investigation. For this to occur, it is necessary for the state or territory in which the prisoner is located to obtain any approvals required from an authority of the relevant state or territory. As such, it is necessary for the state or territory to have in place legislative arrangements allowing for transfer of the prisoner for the purpose of giving evidence or assistance in a foreign country. There is no relevant provision in the Northern Territory’s Prisons (Correctional Services) Act which would allow for such a transfer of a prisoner as contemplated in section 26 or 27 of the Mutual Assistance Act.
For the Mutual Assistance Act to be effective, this bill amends the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act by inserting a new Division 3 under part 17 of the act. The provisions enable the Director of Correctional Services to authorise the release of, and give leave of absence from Northern Territory custody, to a prisoner for the purpose of travelling to a foreign country to give evidence at a proceeding or assistance in relation to an investigation. The director will also have the discretion to impose any conditions on the authorisation as the director thinks fit.
The act is amended allowing the Director of Correctional Services to, at any time, revoke or vary any conditions attaching to any leave of absence granted under the new Division 3. It also provides that during a prisoner’s absence under these circumstances, that the prisoner is taken to be in lawful custody and the term of the prisoner’s imprisonment continues to run.
The amendments contained in this bill do not in any way alter the policy or intention of this legislation, but rather improves the legislation by providing certainty to previously ambiguous provisions to ensure clarity and consistency with other legislation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 26)
(Serial 26)
Continued from 26 November 2008
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill. We support it because it is better to have it than not have it. We support it because, although it could have been better, it is a declaration by the government and, in turn the parliament, that we do not tolerate domestic violence and where people have a reasonable belief that it is occurring, they have an obligation to report it.
We want to send a message to the community that encourages everyone in our community to report acts of violence against women. Violence is a crime; all forms of violence are crimes and we must all act to eliminate them. It is a worthy declaration and sentiment and is therefore worthy of support.
But the bill is a missed opportunity. It does not match the initial intention of government - it is disappointing. It is deficient in one area in particular, namely, only acts of serious physical harm must be reported. Clause 124A (1) (a) of the bill provides that it will be mandatory to report violence if the person has a reasonable belief that:
- (i) another person has caused, or is likely to cause, harm to someone else (the victim) with whom the other person is in a domestic relationship; and
(ii) the life or safety of another person (also the victim) is under serious or imminent threat...
The word ‘harm’ is defined as:
physical harm that is serious harm.
As for the definition of ‘serious harm’, we are referred to the definition contained in the Criminal Code Act, which is and I quote:
- serious harm means any harm (including the cumulative effect of more than one harm):
(a that endangers, or is likely to endanger, a person’s life; or
(b) that is or is likely to be significant and long-standing.
Hence, the type of domestic violence Territorians must report is serious harm, as defined in the Criminal Code:
- a serious harm…that endangers or is likely to endanger a person’s life…..that is or is likely to be significant and long-standing.
There is a definition of harm in the Criminal Code which has not been included in this bill. That definition is found in 1A of the code and it provides that:
(1) Harm is physical harm or harm to a person’s mental health, whether temporary or permanent.
that a person might reasonably object to in the circumstances, whether or not the person was aware of it at the time.
Harm is also defined in sections 1A(3) and (4) of the code, but it is the first two subsections of that section that are particularly significant in the context of this debate.
Everyday in the Northern Territory domestic violence is perpetrated in many forms. Everyday women suffer physical harm. Everyday women suffer physical harm which includes pain, unconsciousness or disfigurement. The Territory’s Domestic Violence Act provides a definition of domestic violence in section A, which is:
- Domestic violence is any of the following conduct committed by a person against someone with whom the person is in a domestic relationship:
(b) damaging property, including the injury or death of an animal;
(c) intimidation;
(d) stalking;
(e) economic abuse;
(f) attempting or threatening to commit conduct mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e.)
Harm is defined by adopting the definition of section (1)(a) in the Criminal Code which includes, as I have already mentioned, physical harm which includes unconsciousness, pain and disfigurement, together with other forms of harm. Put simply, the bill does not include the forms of violence that make up its definition in the Territory’s Domestic Violence Act.
When scrutinising this bill, as I am obliged to do as shadow Attorney-General, I am compelled to ask: why the definition of harm is excluded from this bill? And why has government elected to make it mandatory to report certain types of violence, namely, only violence that endangers or is likely to endanger a person’s life or that is likely to be significant and long-standing, and not other forms of violence, such as those outlined in the Domestic Violence Act and in section (1) (a) of the Criminal Code including harm such as pain, unconsciousness, disfigurement, to mention but a few?
The Attorney-General who introduced this bill wrote to me recently, and I received his letter at my office on Friday. He tried, as far as I could see, to justify his government’s position. The problem is the contents of the letter do not match the government’s public statements and, frankly, make little sense. The letter states:
- Mandatory reporting is intended to reinforce and provide a community-based response to a community problem, sending a message that
any abuse perpetrated against women and children within a domestic violence relationship is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
In the next paragraph the Attorney-General wrote:
- The government’s intention is for mandatory reporting to capture those incidences of domestic and family violence at the high end of the
violence spectrum.
The paragraphs are plainly at odds with one another, in fact, there should have been the word ‘but’ between them.
This bill, despite the government’s publicly stated position, as recently as this morning - I note on ABC Online - means that it will be mandatory to report some forms of violence against women, but not other forms of violence. The former Attorney-General’s letter asserts, and I quote:
- A reporting obligation will operate to allow an early intervention by police …
… to prevent further harm and long-term damage and, in some cases, even fatalities.
This is an extraordinary thing to say. It fails to recognise that, in domestic violence relationships, violence very often escalates over time. There is a need for early intervention when harm is caused and we should not wait until a woman is subjected to violence that endangers her life before a reporting obligation commences.
The government’s position, as outlined in the letter to which I have referred, and the bill, are at odds with the government’s publicly stated position. A fundamental question arises, and that is: does this bill serve to reinforce the existing attitudes towards violence against women in the Northern Territory, namely the normalisation and enculturation of violence, or will it provide a real mechanism for social change and improve safety and wellbeing for women and children?
It is important to consider the background of this bill, and how and why it is that we have come to this point; it highlights the opportunity that has been lost. Over the last 20 years or so, as some members of this House know, governments and others have tried to encourage women, and others, to report domestic violence. Many years ago it was considered something that happened in the home and was no one else’s business. Thankfully, that view has changed. As a society, we should keep building on it and not, in any way, seek to minimise violence against women, or to send any form of message that some forms of violence against women are acceptable but others are not. No one should seek to undo the gains that have been made over the last 20 years. More specifically, we should look at what has occurred in and from the Territory with respect to violence against women and children.
The Lateline interview with Dr Nanette Rogers on 15 May 2006 was a critical event. Commentators have said - and I agree with them - that the interview has changed, and continues to change, Indigenous affairs in this country. The collective outrage expressed after the interview about the myriad of violence in the Territory was extraordinary. We have since seen a flurry of activity from governments and individuals, and millions of dollars allocated to tackling violence against Aboriginal women and children.
While child sexual abuse became the most talked about and acted on aspect of the interview, Dr Rogers also talked about violence against women in the Territory. In the interview she said:
- … violence is entrenched in a lot of aspects of Aboriginal society ...
The next day, Jane Lloyd, Chair of the Domestic and Family Violence Advisory Council, was quoted in The Australian:
- There are high levels of violence and that violent behaviour has become tolerated and acceptable.
On ABC radio the next day, she said that some men in some communities:
- … do not see anything socially or culturally wrong in assaulting women.
I have seen much activity from governments, but I have seen painfully little that directly targets the culture of violence that they talked about. This bill is intended to send a message that violence is not tolerated, and harming women is not tolerated. However, the fact that it only includes ‘serious harm’ sends the message that some forms of violence against women are tolerated while others are not. Violence is violence, and it should not be tolerated.
In October 2006, Coroner Greg Cavanagh delivered his findings into the death of an Indigenous woman who lived on an outstation on the Cobourg Peninsula. She was subjected to years of violence by her partner. The violence escalated in its seriousness. Sadly, there appears to be no understanding by the government of the dangers with what it clearly considers low-level violence and how, so often, it escalates and leads to more serious violence and, on occasion, death. In many domestic-related homicide cases in the Territory, the fatality was preceded by a history of less serious assaults. In a majority of domestic violence-related homicide cases, the women had presented to health and other services with a range of assault injuries, and/or presentations, prior to their homicide. A high percentage of violence preceding the serious harm incidents is unreported.
The nature and extent of violence in Territory communities means there is an urgent need for earlier intervention to prevent serious harm or death, and break the cycle of violence. All forms of violence against women - violence as defined in the Criminal Code - should clearly fall under mandatory reporting. We should not wait for serious harm to occur. Interestingly, Magistrate Cavanagh raised the possibility of making it mandatory for health professionals to report domestic violence. He urged the government to consider implementing a mandatory reporting system relating to the circumstances of domestic violence. That was in October 2006.
In June 2006, I said that I would make it mandatory to report domestic violence. The next day in Question Time, I asked the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, whether she would support the introduction of mandatory reporting of domestic violence. She would not. I asked it again in October 2007. She did not commit to it. As we know, the former Chief Minister responded very badly to the issues of violence against women and children after the Lateline interview in May 2006. The poor performance contributed to and, some would say, caused her demise. In any event the government was publicly at least quiet on the mandatory reporting of domestic violence until mid-last year.
On 9 July, the new Chief Minister and his deputy issued a media release saying that they would introduce mandatory reporting. It was a significant change from the Clare Martin era. Interestingly, it was done very close to the announcement of an election. It appears that they wanted to put this issue to rest, thereby seeking to put some distance between themselves and Martin’s poor response to violence against women and children. However, the rhetoric simply does not match what has appeared in this bill – but, of course, that is nothing new with this government.
I repeat that, under the provisions of the bill, Territorians must only report violence that endangers or is likely to endanger a person’s life, or that is likely to be significant and long-standing. Violence that causes harm, that is physical harm, which includes unconsciousness, pain, and disfigurement, for instance, is not the type of violence that is reportable under this bill. Why is it that only serious physical harm that endangers a person’s life or is likely to be significant or long-standing must be reported, but physical harm such as unconsciousness, pain, and disfigurement are not? Why is it that the government wants to make it mandatory to report acts of serious harm, but does not make it mandatory to report acts of other kinds of harm? Why is it that the government wants to make it mandatory to report serious violence, but not less serious violence? Why is it that the government wants to make it mandatory to report acts of significant violence, but not, conversely, insignificant violence, if there is such a thing?
The effect of this bill is that the government seeks to separate forms of harm, violence against women. The government seeks to distinguish between types of violence against women. The government seeks to send a message to the community that domestic violence must be reported, but only particular types of domestic violence. What is the justification for this position, and how on earth can it be justified? How can it be justified on any basis at all, let alone having regard to the last two-and-a-half years in particular, during which members of this government, and others, have issued endless media releases declaring their focus on tackling violence against women and children? The government has fallen short of the standards it set. This can clearly be seen by reviewing various comments by government ministers and various government publications.
In a media release issued on 9 July last year, the government announced mandatory reporting. The first paragraph of that media release reads as follows:
- Chief Minister Paul Henderson and Deputy Chief Minister Marion Scrymgour have announced new mandatory reporting laws for domestic assaults.
What the media release did not say was that only serious harm that endangers a person’s life or is likely to be significant or long-standing, would be included in the laws. Elsewhere in the media release, it said:
- Domestic violence assaults are unacceptable and we must show strong leadership - mandatory reporting is the right thing to do.
What the media release did not say was that only domestic violence assaults that cause serious harm that endangers a person’s life, or is likely to be significant or long-standing, are reportable.
Apparently, it is not the right thing to do to require reporting of less serious forms of violence or, indeed, other forms of physical harm. The media release went on to say:
- As a society we have to break this cycle of violence to protect women and children.
What the media release did not say was that the view of this government is that women and children need only be protected from violence that causes serious harm that endangers a person’s life, or is likely to be significant or long-standing, but not any other kind violence or physical harm.
The media release went on:
- We already have mandatory reporting for child abuse, and like child abuse, the perpetrators of domestic violence are protected when the community remains silent.
What the media release did not say is that this government apparently believes that there is a sliding scale of violence against women and children, because only violence that causes or will cause serious harm that endangers a person’s life or that is likely to be significant or long-standing, must be reported, but other forms of violence need not be.
The minister who introduced this legislation said in his second reading speech on 26 November and I quote:
- The bill before the House reflects this government’s strong commitment to tackling domestic violence in our community.
What the minister did not say, is that the government apparently has a strong commitment to tackling violence that causes or will cause serious harm that endangers a person’s life or that is likely to be significant or long-standing, but it is not so strongly committed in relation to other forms of violence, such as where physical harm, including pain, disfigurement and unconsciousness occurs.
The minister went on and I quote:
- This government believes it is the responsibility of every member of our community to help break the cycle of domestic and family violence,
and protect women and children from violence. The mandatory reporting law reflects this important responsibility.
What the minister’s second reading speech did not say, was that this bill only reflects this government’s view that it is the responsibility of every member of our community to help break the cycle of violence if that violence causes or will cause serious harm that endangers a person’s life, or that it is likely to be significant or long-standing, but if it does not satisfy that criteria, then it need not be reported.
It is clear that ministers have not kept up with their own rhetoric. Surely they know that this bill, by excluding all forms of violence, other than serious harm, is at odds with their own public statements. What makes it worse, however, is that it is not just a few statements that have been made. The government has been at pains to stress the importance of imposing a responsibility on the community, on sending the message to the community that domestic violence is not to be tolerated and that violence against women, in its many forms, is absolutely rejected by the government and community.
The comments ministers have made simply do not match the content of the bill. Consequently, the message the government is attempting to send and, indeed, the government, are diminished.
Building on our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008–2012 was launched in March last year by the then minister for Women’s Policy. This is the government’s vision for women in the Northern Territory for the years ahead. It has a part devoted to safety. The action plan says, and I quote:
- A reduction in violence and assault will only come through consistently challenging and changing attitudes and behaviour at all levels of society to make violence
and bullying unacceptable.
It sounds like something Jane Lloyd might have said. Yet despite getting the sentiment right, the bill, which is aimed at changing community behaviour, falls short. It is quite remarkable.
The current domestic violence strategy does not distinguish between forms of violence against women. Indeed, it says that the government is committed to and I quote:
- Creating a community that values the safety of individuals and families, and is prepared to take action to protect those involved in or threatened by physical and emotional abuse.
There are no references in the domestic violence strategy to serious harm. In fact, it proudly boasts that the strategy - your strategy – and I quote:
… covers a broad range of violent and abusive behaviours that occur within a variety of close interpersonal relationships.
Your domestic violence strategy covers a broad range of violent and abusive behaviours. In the strategy, the government acknowledges the broad range of violent behaviours and is prepared to take action to protect those involved in or threatened by physical and emotional abuse but, in this bill, only seeks to make it mandatory to report certain types of violence against women. It does not make any logical sense. It does not make sense in light of the government’s previously stated position on domestic violence, and its current one, and it does not make any sense in light of sending a message that violence against women will not and should not be tolerated.
The government recently published Building on our Strengths: A Framework for Action for Women in the Northern Territory 2008-2012, on page 20 it says, and I quote:
- Women in the Northern Territory face a higher risk of family violence and of sexual assault per capita than women in other states and Territories in Australia.
It does not seek to separate serious assaults from non-serious assaults, nor does it distinguish between types of violence perpetrated against women. It simply states the horrible truth about our women, overwhelmingly Indigenous women, and the violence they experience. They know violence is violence, and so do the statisticians.
The strategy goes on to state in the action plan, and I quote:
- In 2005, there were 3938 victims of assault, 245 victims of sexual assault, and 22 cases of homicide and related offences reported to police in the Northern Territory.
Once again, there is no separation of serious and non-serious assaults. In this document, the government’s own action plan for Territory women, an assault is apparently considered an assault. The reader believes that the government’s view is that all assaults against women are acts of violence and the reader might reasonably expect it to be mandatory to report all forms of violence. How disappointed they will be when they read this bill and know its effects.
I do not propose to quote endless figures about domestic violence. What is clear is that the levels are a national disgrace and the figures available do not take into account the high rate of under-reporting. In the most recent quarterly crime statistics, September 2008, the staggering rate of under-reporting of assault offences is highlighted. It quotes the ABS Crime and Safety survey publication, and states that:
- 69% of assault offences are not reported to police.
While these figures refer to all forms of assault, there can be no doubt that the rate of under-reporting of violence against women is very high. Given the figures we do have about the rates of domestic violence and given the high level of non-reporting, clearly the actual rates of domestic violence are shamefully high. Does it not follow that if decision makers want to make real in-roads in this area, then all forms of violence against women in domestic relationships should be included in this bill?
This bill does not deal with the massive problem of under-reporting violence. Victims are often too frightened to report themselves; many victims have been socialised into believing that violence is a normal part of intimate partner relationships. Women who are the subject of domestic violence present to our hospitals with a range of injuries. In 2006, a study was undertaken into the number of women admitted to the Alice Springs Hospital since the year 2000 for domestic violence matters. In 2006 alone, the study, undertaken by Dale Wakefield, revealed that 666 Indigenous women presented to the hospital with assault-related injuries. It showed that, on average, Indigenous women presented 36 times in a six-year period with assault-related injuries. Neither the general manager of the hospital nor the government have disputed those figures. Those women presented with a range of injuries.
The government says that only those women who have injuries that fall within the definition of the Criminal Code – namely, serious physical harm that endangers a person’s life or that is likely to be significant or long-standing - must be reported, but not other forms of physical harm. Surely, no one in government would contend that each of those 666 women presented with injuries that fell into the serious harm category. Of course, they did not. Some did, many would not. However, as a result of the bill, some assaults against these women will have to be reported and others will not. It is patently absurd.
The bill is likely to lead to confusion and muddy the message the government wants to send. There can be no doubt that a simple message is required, especially in some of our remote communities. That message is: ‘Do not bash women and, if you see it happening or you know it to be occurring, you must report it’. It goes directly to the culture of violence in some communities about which Nanette Rogers and Jane Lloyd have spoken.
Violence is acculturated and engendered across many communities in the Territory. It has become normalised, and children grow up learning to accept violence, and that violence is a normal and acceptable response. Within this environment, in particular, it is very dangerous to restrict mandatory reporting to serious harm and to leave other forms of violence to the discretion of individuals, family members, community members, and professionals to report. By prescribing only serious harm as the type of violence to be reported, it requires bystanders to make a judgment about the seriousness or otherwise of the violence that occurs. That is not the message that I thought the government wanted to send to the community at large, and remote communities in particular.
At the same time, it provides the ultimate out for perpetrators: ‘I did not hit her hard. She was not bleeding. It was not harm that caused or will cause serious harm that endangered her life and it was not significant or long-standing’.
The exclusion of harm will, potentially, leave women who do not need hospitalisation in a very dangerous position. Furthermore, there is a risk that the message being sent by this government will be interpreted by those who perpetrate domestic violence, or those who experience it and professionals who see it, that this is the first step in the formal, legal decriminalisation of domestic violence. That would be an unintended consequence of this bill.
The government accepted lock, stock and barrel the contents and recommendations of the report into the inquiry Clare Martin called to examine sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. Those who have read it - and I doubt anyone on the other side of the Chamber has - but for those who read it …
Ms Lawrie: Have read it. Read all of it.
Ms CARNEY: You are very rude.
For those who read it, they will recall that the authors contended it was clear that many Indigenous people in many communities did not understand what constituted child abuse. While this was something of a remarkable conclusion, it was a conclusion in any event and was accepted by the government. The authors of the report, at page 74, said:
- The Inquiry found that while many Aboriginal people and communities did have an understanding of what range of behaviours might constitute sexual abuse,
there were a considerable number who did not. Being able to have a clear understanding is also complicated by the context in which the term is being used
and who is using it.
For my part, I believe that men who sexually abuse children know exactly what it is. However, given that this is what the authors of the report found, then one would have thought that someone in this government might have thought that making the message as simple as possible for Aboriginal people in remote communities was the obvious thing to do.
With this bill, we now have the absurd situation of encouraging Aboriginal men and women to report violence against women, hopefully, with a view to addressing the entrenched culture of violence that is described by Dr Rogers and Jane Lloyd, by giving them a definition that does not include basic and well understood concepts such as physical harm, pain, disfigurement and unconsciousness. Frankly, a simple message is required. Violence is violence, you cannot do it, and if you know it is happening, you have to report it. I am concerned that this bill will not achieve what the government wanted.
Madam Speaker, I am compelled to ask – is the intention of this legislation to provide greater protection to those most at risk of domestic violence, and to prevent serious harm and death, or is it just to improve the rates of reporting and data collection? Does it serve to reinforce the existing attitudes towards violence against women in the Northern Territory, namely the normalisation and enculturation of violence, or will it provide a real mechanism for social change and improved safety and wellbeing for women and children? It would have been good if members of government had asked those questions. It appears they have not.
For all of the reasons I have outlined, this bill is a profound disappointment. It has fallen well short of what government told Territorians it would achieve. Nevertheless, despite the problems I have identified and the bill not matching the government’s rhetoric, it is better to have it than not have it. It is something of an attempt to say enough is enough. It is something of a declaration that the community has an enforceable obligation to report violence against women and children. However, the great shame is that the bill could have been so much better.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the Territory was the first jurisdiction to introduce mandatory reporting for child abuse about 25 years ago. The legislation was regarded at the time, and for 25 years afterwards, as cutting edge. We are the first jurisdiction to introduce mandatory reporting for domestic violence for the whole community. It is a great shame that our legislation will not be as highly regarded as the legislation that mandated the reporting of child abuse.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I speak proudly in support of this legislation. Why? This side of the parliament is taking very real steps in wanting to see social and attitudinal change about domestic violence amongst our people across the Northern Territory, and in particular in our communities. The government is standing up and saying that enough is enough. The Northern Territory is the first jurisdiction in this country to come this close to wanting to attack what we see as an epidemic of major proportions across the Northern Territory. You only have to talk to people on communities to know the amount of doctor travels - the flying doctor service going in and out of communities - to know how many people are flown in and out in relation to violence within their communities.
We know that this parliament is being watched very closely by our counterparts across Australia because we are dealing with the first introduction of mandatory reporting legislation - a world-first, I am advised - a courageous decision by this parliament, and a courageous decision by my colleagues in Cabinet and previous members who have now left.
In 2007-08, there were 2867 reports of domestic violence, and 2594 police-initiated Domestic Violence Orders. The 2867 reports account for about half of all reported assaults in the Northern Territory; half the assaults in the Northern Territory are domestic violence-driven. How can the government be accused of not doing enough? How can we be accused of that when we are the first in this country to make this stand against domestic violence? The same statistics also tell us that Indigenous women are 45 times more likely to be involved in domestic and family violence than non-Indigenous women. As disturbing as these statistics are, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that only 36% of victims actually report to police. This is another aspect about the domestic violence epidemic that must change.
Let us not lose sight of the political importance of what is occurring in this parliament today. Let us not lose sight of the social change that will be brought about for the people of the Northern Territory. It is an historic day, and it is disappointing to listen to, what I consider, the rubbish coming from the member for Araluen. I am incredibly disappointed because it is the member for Araluen who has been calling for mandatory reporting of domestic violence and has been a passionate supporter of this legislation regarding the mandatory reporting of domestic violence.
In 1980 when the prospect of mandatory reporting for child abuse was debated, there were strong voices of opposition in our community. In 1981, the Australian Law Reform Commission released a report into child welfare which highlighted the arguments against the introduction of mandatory reporting for child abuse. The voices of opposition to the mandatory reporting of child abuse from 28 years ago have a very familiar ring to those opposing this legislation today.
I have travelled across the Northern Territory for many months to look at this legislation and to discuss it with legal groups and with women’s services. I know their trepidation and I know they are anxious. I know they wonder where this could lead them. But not one of them said to me: do not do this, do not go down this path, do not pursue the mandatory reporting of domestic violence. Not one person said that. Every person who works with any victim of domestic violence, or any of the perpetrators for that matter, recognises that this is important. There has to be attitudinal change in the Northern Territory. We cannot have half the population being assaulted - being victims in such a way - and not care about what is going on.
Opponents of mandatory reporting of child abuse claimed, amongst other things, that mandatory reporting would result in people not seeking help, that mandatory reporting would result in further violence, it would be unenforceable, that there would be confidentiality issues, and it was claimed that certain occupations could be professionally compromised.
I have had the same responses from different professions across the Northern Territory and I listened to those concerns and I respect them, but what I respect even more is that the people who raised those concerns did not say: do not go ahead with this. We must go ahead with this because we know we have to change; something has to change in the Northern Territory. They have said to me: ‘What we want to help you with is the communication strategy. Over the next four years, the government is committing $15m to a communication strategy to educate and inform what these changes mean.
Let us get to the heart of what this means for people who experience domestic violence. I am incredibly passionate about wanting to see this legislation go through and I am conscious that there are always risks and that we will no doubt uncover things along the way that we have to canvas. But the risks to women and children are so great. I know that what we pass today and what we debate today is saying to our children, and future children in the Northern Territory, that the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory do not tolerate any form of violence; we want our children to grow knowing that they will grow in a safe place and that if there is violence in the home, that if their mother or their aunty will not speak up for themselves, others can.
Let me give you some examples, and I have to relate personal examples, because I grew up in a family where domestic violence was normal. Alcohol abuse on my mother’s side, and the violence that we witnessed as young children growing up in communities, we were made to think that was normal. I can tell you now, it is not normal. But the most difficult aspect is that many people and communities believe it is normal; it is normal to hit your wife and your kids, it is normal to have a fight that leaves someone incredibly ill, so that when they go to hospital, they remain conscious or unconscious, or need amputations. These are the sorts of things that children witness in communities - burning with firesticks, all sorts of things that go on - behaviour that you are made to feel is normal. That is what I am getting at; this is abnormal, and no child should have to see any of those things and grow up thinking that is the way it is, and grow up behaving the same way.
I witnessed my own mum go through years of domestic violence, and one of the heartbreaking things is that you know that the perpetrator is a good man, too. This is what part of this education campaign is about, appealing to men, saying: ‘We need you; we need you to recognise what is going on and we need you to change’. Strong advocates like Charlie King and others in men’s groups across the Northern Territory say: ‘We know that men are a large part of the problem. They are very much the solution’.
I know that those who watch their own family’s domestic violence and feel helpless about doing anything; this is going to help change that, to empower others to take some responsibility for what they know is wrong. It is not a case of standing by and saying: ‘That is not my business; that is their business. I am not going to get involved’. It is about the social and attitudinal change.
I have to tell the story of Rosie; we are probably around the same age. I remember getting a phone call one night saying that she had been flown in on the doctor plane from a community, and she was unconscious. I had to get all the family who were in Darwin prepared to think that this is it. She had obviously been caught up with drinking and fighting with her partner and she had picked up an infection from the violence that she had received over so many months or years - I do not know.
When I got the phone call that she was being flown in, we expected the worst and we went into the intensive care unit at Royal Darwin Hospital. How many times have I gone into that hospital visiting mainly women who had experienced some form of violence? And now I was going to visit someone very special to me. When the nurses said: ‘Look, you all better get ready’. We prayed, we really prayed; we were praying for a miracle, wondering how much chance she had.
No one actually knows what happened because she had not been able to tell anyone. The only thing people knew was that she had tried to get to the clinic, and when she got to the clinic she collapsed. People were trying to piece together her movements. Someone had seen her down by the river; someone else had seen her drinking with a group of people at a house; someone else had seen her trying to walk up to another house somewhere.
So while family members were trying to piece together who she was with and where had she been, we stood around the bed and we prayed. Her daughters were with me, and over the next days, she hung in there. The nurses and doctors were starting to think that she was fighting. She ended up staying in hospital for one year. Rosie survived - she survived - and it was an absolute miracle. However, her left arm had been broken, many of her toes were cut off and some of her fingers. She had not only to recover physically, from what had been a major physical attack on her; she also had the mental and emotional recovery to make.
I used to jokingly say to her: ‘I need your autograph. I do not think I have known anyone who has been in RDH this long’. Many of the doctors and nurses got to know and love her, and helped her in her recovery. The medical staff were tremendous, knowing they were flying a person out and thinking that she was gone. Her will to survive was astounding.
What happened to Rosie over so many years, everyone new about. People in the community knew and no one did anything because they thought: ‘That is their business. Whatever happens is between them’. That is what we have to change. That is what this legislation is about. It is about the care and compassion that is required for others in our community, who may or may not belong to us. It is about the courage to speak up and say: ‘No. Enough is enough. We are not going to do that’. That is my call, in particular, to the men of the Northern Territory, this is about all of us.
When we look at the background of the intervention, many Aboriginal men were made to feel as though they were perpetrators of child abuse; that they were bad fathers, horrible uncles, and that they were no-good husbands. Many of them are good people. They were then and they are still good now. However, there are many others who need a second chance regarding the violence in the home against their partners, and to be reminded that it is not about them - it is about the children. This is what our kids are witnessing in communities across the Northern Territory.
Thankfully, in the department of Family and Children Services, there are workers who deal with this and who deal with the children to help them come through. Unless every Territorian recognises that we will not tolerate domestic violence in the Northern Territory, only then, with that attitudinal and social change, are we going to break down what has become an incredible epidemic in our towns and communities - only then.
Late last year I called on the men of the Northern Territory to support me, because I will be carrying the education and awareness campaign. I sought the support of men’s groups to work with me, knowing that we need them to be a part of this, as we need the women to be strong and stand up.
A couple of weeks ago, at the Aboriginal All Stars and Adelaide Crows football match, we saw the beginning of the launch of the education campaign. The footballers linked arms together, and acknowledged their positions as role models and, especially the Aboriginal All Stars, acknowledging how infectious domestic violence is as a disease in our families. It is not about saying we cannot stop it; it is about saying we can stop it. We can and we must stop it, and we have to do it together as a community of people.
When the Aboriginal All Stars and the Adelaide Crows linked arms, the Santa Teresa mob were at the front of the stadium; the Santa Teresa footballers led by Phillip Alice. I say a very personal thank you to the men from Central Australia who travelled up to support me and Charlie King; to support us in what we are trying to do.
We know that we are not going to solve this issue overnight or by next week. We also know that there are going to be other issues that come up with the complexities of how the reporting works and the mechanics of the legal side of it. We know all that. The reason we are pursuing it is because we know there is a major epidemic in communities across the Northern Territory.
The government is taking a leadership role that is being watched across the country and around the world, and we should not be ashamed of that at all. We are going to find it tough, because domestic violence is an emotional issue, a difficult issue, and there is a great deal of fear involved, not only for the victim, but also for the people who surround the victim and for the perpetrator.
As part of the campaign, I want to ensure that we work very closely with Corrections. I look forward to working with the new Corrections minister, because many of the perpetrators end up in gaol. We need to look at how this education campaign is going to target the offenders in a way that they can come out, as men, who will take on the responsibility for their families, so their children can grow up with a better role model than the one who might have gone into prison.
I call on all men of this parliament, just as I have called on all men across the Northern Territory, to stand with me in saying ‘no more’ to domestic violence as part of this campaign. It is about that kind of leadership. It is about acting if you are aware of things that are going on and encouraging others who may know of things. It is a scourge of our society that has to stop, and we have to encourage one another to do that.
This calendar is the footballers across Central Australia who stood up and said that they will support the ‘no more’ campaign. I have copies to give to the members from Central Australia. It includes things like the Anmatjere Football Club saying ‘men can make families feel safe’, and the Amoonguna Football Club saying ‘strong men play football and care for their families’; each of the football clubs have come together. Look at the example set by Santa Teresa with the football code and the domestic violence code.
It is going to be tough for these communities; by no means are they going to find it easy to say no to players coming on the field if those players have not looked after their family. Those players who have been charged or questioned by the police, or even if they have not been questioned by police, but a member of the family comes up and says: ‘He did not do the right thing there’. That is the kind of stand we need. It has to be community driven, from within our own communities; the police cannot be everywhere all the time. This has to be about every individual taking responsibility for their place in life and for their families.
The Federals Football Club, ‘Caring for family is our goal’; Ltyentye Apurte, ‘The biggest win is beating family violence, getting over family violence’; ‘Standing up for your children’s safety’, from the Papunya Football Club; Papunya Outstation Cats, ‘Looking out for each other’; Ti Tree Roosters, ‘Winning in life is being strong for our women and children’; Yuendumu Magpies, ‘Give child abuse the boot’; Lajamanu Football Club, ‘All men have a responsibility to protect their families’; Yurrampi Football Club, ‘A commitment to care for our kids’; Plenty Highway Football Club, ‘Every day is care for your family day’; Yuelamu Football Club, ‘Weekend warriors for football, and lifetime warriors for our family’.
This calendar was put together by these footballers because they know the importance of this campaign. Centacare has been working with them on this for a long time, and I commend Centacare and the work that is being done. We know that there are perpetrators in our communities and there are men in this calendar who have a history, but I said to the men: ‘Do not be ashamed of your history, come and stand with your team, because you are saying, no more. If you are going to continue, your own team mates are going to tell you to get out’. That is the kind of community campaign we need; a societal and attitudinal change. That is what is really courageous about today’s legislation. That is what is really courageous about the government’s decision to pursue this - a world-first. No fear, but a realisation that something has to change for the better.
Part of the education campaign that I am charged with is to look at how we reach out to the communities and suburbs in Darwin, because we know that domestic violence is not just amongst Indigenous people. We know that domestic violence occurs anywhere, anytime, in any home and in any family. Part of the campaign is to reach all levels of society, whether it is a child living in a family in Fannie Bay or Anula. How we target that audience with this campaign is the strategy I am charged with. I know that we have a tender out for that campaign, and I encourage people to have a look at the website. We want to make sure that when we are talking about social change, that every Territorian, from every walk of life, recognises that this is a significant day in the history of the Northern Territory. I know that this is important.
I commend members of my family who have endured as victims of domestic violence, and I have personally learned from their experiences. I am thankful I have never been a victim myself, but when you stand beside members of your family who are victims, in some respects, you are carrying a lot of the emotion that goes with trying to help them through.
I am very proud of my sister, who endured domestic violence for 12 years of her life. I am very proud that she has been able to come through. It was a difficult road, but I know that her four children are better for the decisions that she has made in life, and we have been able to support her. As a family we made a decision that we had to stop everything and focus on her and the children, because we knew that if we did not work with the emotional stress and strains, and what the children were going through, they would not have such a good chance in life as adults. They might still go off the rails, but I believe we can be satisfied, as a family, knowing that we have helped them and that they have been able to see a different way.
I thank especially my husband, Norm. I believe he is a terrific role model to all the children we have cared for. As a family, we have cared for around 10 children over the past 10 or 12 years, to get them through issues largely related to domestic violence, alcohol abuse and neglect. I believe my husband is a wonderful example of what men can do for their families and how they show leadership to the children who grow in those families. It has been a really difficult road for all of us.
When I spoke earlier about the experiences of my mum, I spoke in the context of her living with another man at the time she went through that decade of abuse. But her strength in enduring and coming through that meant she was able to give the support that was needed for my sister. But you can see that roll-on effect and how families need that support.
I make a special commendation to mum and to my sister. I know this is an important day, particularly for women across the Northern Territory, but also for our men.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, to use a colloquialism: ‘domestic violence sucks’. It is not cool, and it is something that should not be tolerated. I know all members of parliament abhor domestic violence and so do I.
I have some concerns about the legislation, but I will support the legislation. When I say that, I do not want the government to say that I question the sincerity of the minister, or those people who may disagree with what I have to say today.
My target of debate today will hone in on the practicalities of the legislation. I know that the government is trying to do a very important thing; to reduce harm to people in domestic relationships. I thank the minister for allowing me to have a briefing from the department when I raised some concerns about the legislation. The government is trying to do something that no one else has done, although Tasmania has it sitting on the books, and there are some issues which it is looking at and, I believe, reviewing the legislation for various reasons.
I say at the outset that I spent six years on the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council and most of those years were spent discussing domestic violence and a policy for the Catholic Church on the issue of domestic violence. One thing that came out of that was not to have gender specific legislation.
I raise this because there is much discussion that domestic violence is all about women and children; the majority is, and I fully accept that. I asked this question during Estimates last year in relation to domestic violence related offences, 1 July 2007 to 31 May 2008. There was the terrible number of 3490 offences. Of those, 3163 were Indigenous - so you can see where the major problem is, the smaller population with the larger number of offences is Indigenous – and 327 non-Indigenous.
In the case of the non-Indigenous, when you break it up into victims, 229 were female and 98 were male; about one third were male victims. In the case of Indigenous, it is 1905 females, to 258 males. I am not in any way diminishing the terrible effect it has on many women and children, but it would be remiss of me if I did not say that it also affects males – very much so. You can see from the figures, in the case of non-Indigenous, that one third is a reasonable proportion of people in a domestic relationship who are males affected.
I prefer to be gender neutral in this case. But I do make the statement, because it is a reality, especially in Indigenous society, that the largest number of victims are women. I fully appreciate the personal details, minister, you gave us. I spent 14 years of my life coming from middle class Melbourne to, you might say, a third world Aboriginal society, as it was in those early days, and still is in some places. I had never seen violence except perhaps on the football field, and for the first time I saw women being bashed. Standing outside the church on Easter Sunday night there was a woman half covered in blood; her face was just dripping with blood. She had been hit on the head with a sharp object and a man was kneeling over her - his wife - with a steel bar. He was about six foot and probably weighed about 100 kg; she was about 5’2” and weighed half that.
Those images never left me, but no one called it domestic violence. I believe we thought it was sort of normal. One of the great changes we are having, especially in Aboriginal communities, is that we are not accepting that is part of the normal way things are done. I believe it is a difficult change and it takes a lot of work.
When reading the legislation, I thought at first that one of the big problems would be in outback communities. If I go through all the rules which are mandatory for me to report domestic violence, it says first of all it has to be life threatening. So, I have to make a decision: is it life threatening. I do not know how I am going to make that decision. I can hear crockery and windows being smashed and swearing and screaming, but it might be just their everyday blue. I prefer to report that straightaway, to be honest with you, because it might lead to something more serious.
However, if I am the local minister, the CEO of the council, or I am a relation - which is probably even harder – in theory, I am supposed to report that. I know the act says if you believe, that by reporting it, someone’s life is in danger, you do not have to report it. I argue that is an excuse that means no one will report it, because if you live on a little community out in the bush where there might be 150 people, everyone knows everyone else. If you ring up the police and say: ‘Fred just bashed his wife’, and Fred finds out later that you, as the local nurse, reported him, there is a fair chance that some of the family might be around to knock on your door. I have had the same thing happen at a community, where a person came around drunk and asked me for a vehicle. It can be very scary and threatening. When there are no police - as in the community where I was - what is one suppose to do?
The law says you do not have to report, but are we defeating the purpose of mandatory reporting? In many isolated communities, especially, relations are going to get pummelled if they find out that uncle reported it. What I am looking at are the practical issues.
If I disregard this section of the law and say: ‘I am going to be brave enough and I am going to report it’. What has the government done to make sure I am protected? Are they going to fly me out of the community? In the case of an Aboriginal person who lives there, they might not have the choice of being flown out. What will happen to them? What will be the protection for those people? We do not want to aggravate something that is bad enough already, but we have a domestic violence situation which is bad and someone has been injured or whose life is threatened. Are we going to make it worse when someone tells the police this is happening, and they are threatened with violence?
That is why I feel the legislation is sending out a good message, but I am not sure that it is or will be effective. I also take the point the member for Araluen made. I read from a submission, and I spoke to several groups. Relationships Australia said that mandatory reporting did not cover half of it. They queried why mandatory reporting covers harm and domestic violence, yet there is no mention of other serious acts of domestic violence: damage to property, intimidation, stalking, and economic abuse. That is a failure of this legislation. If I heard screaming and yelling, I would not be sitting there saying: ‘I really have to report this because of the legislation’. I would do it because, as a person, one should try to help people in times of danger. It does not matter whether it is domestic violence or not.
We are honing in on a particular problem - and I am not in any way denigrating that problem - but the real problem is violence in our society. Why is that man or woman using violence to overcome a problem? Is it something they learnt when they were young? Is it exacerbated by the use of alcohol? I bet it is both of those. What are we doing in society to change that? We allow drunkenness to be okay.
I have spoken about it many times in this parliament. We make excuses for drunkenness. We provide buses so people are not drink-driving; we make sure there is a taxi rank in Mitchell Street so they are not getting into trouble. Why are we doing that? Because they are drunk; it is okay to be drunk. Everyone thinks it is okay. Eighty per cent of violent crime in the Territory is caused by alcohol. I believe we are sending the wrong message, to say it is okay on one hand and no good on the other. I do not think drunkenness is okay. Having a good time is one thing, but drunkenness, when people totally lose control - we see many young people today doing that – is something that the government and the community should say no to and, at the same time, we should be saying no to violence as a solution to a problem.
I umpire football - I only do the juniors, because I can just keep up with them - and I have seen violence in the under-14s. Some of the violence was reported. These are 13-year-old kids that come up and pummel other kids at the end of the game. It is not a hip-and-shoulder, or the normal sort of bumps you get in a football match. Where did they get that from - at 13 years old? Has someone not told them to control their temper? How much of the violence we are now seeing and trying to change, goes back to parenting and our society? Are we addressing those bigger problems as well? This is like after the horse has bolted legislation. We have a major problem - 3490 offences in the Northern Territory with a population of 200 000. That is a fairly high figure, that is 3490 offences that should never have happened.
I put these comments as positive comments. I understand the fervour, minister, which you put into this legislation, I appreciate that. That does not mean that the technical side - which is not the passion side - which we have to deal with in this parliament, should not be analysed to see whether it is workable; and that is what I am looking at.
I am not the only one. I spoke to the Nursing Federation, and they said immediately that there were glaring omissions in the case of having protection for nurses. If a nurse does get brave enough to report something, where is the protection? They also mentioned the issue of pay-back in a community. They thought perhaps there needed to be protocols in place in communities where a person under threat could be evacuated from that community for their safety. Perhaps there should be agreements with elders in relation to people reporting these incidents. It can be a problem if the elders are the problem.
Relationships Australia also said that it opposed the amendments because victims will fear reprisal; the majority of women want to keep the relationship but stop the violence. It also said some women will avoid seeking help or medical assistance, or partners will keep them away to avoid reporting. I believe they are fair comments. I do not believe it means that the legislation should not keep going forward, but it would be good to hear from the government’s response to people who are far more knowledgeable about these issues than I am; which is why I went to them.
There was also a report by the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse. In its letter to the government it said:
- While recognising the serious risks posed by perpetrators to victims of domestic and family violence, sometimes occasioning death,
the Clearinghouse does not support this proposal.
The Clearinghouse continued with a quite detailed submission regarding its concerns. It mentioned a particular case at Cobourg Peninsula, with the death of a lady. One of the things it highlighted was the lack of early intervention. There had been four reports, I gather, before that lady died, and it raised the issue of early intervention. It also raised the issue of the lack of police resources; if there is much more reporting, can the police handle it? I believe that is one of the issues in Tasmania at the moment, does it have the numbers of people in its police force to handle all these extra complaints that may come through the system?
The Clearinghouse also said:
- The Clearinghouse does not support the introduction of mandatory reporting of domestic and family violence by health workers.
It had concerns about what would happen to health workers who reported domestic violence. It also said that, if you do that, it would strongly support the introduction of a trial of this intervention and its full evaluation. I support that.
The government is saying this type of legislation will be effective. I believe it is fair for me to say, let us see in 12 months if the level of domestic violence has been reduced. Or have the numbers of reportings increased? Have people been threatened when reporting?’
I believe a detailed response to this legislation in 12 months would be good, or in 24 months, because 12 months might not be enough time for everything to settle in. If the government says that this legislation will change things; this legislation is going to make things different - I hope it does, minister, I am not putting your beliefs down one iota. But if you put legislation through, which is based on clauses and subsections and say this law will make things different, then I believe it is the responsibility of government to come back to this House with the figures and the facts; our legislation is working.
If it is not working, then I ask the minister to come back and see where the problems are with it. I hope the problems with it do not mean that we have more violence, of course. As I have said, there might be some issues of pay-back with people reporting it. But if there are problems, I hope the government will come back and say this legislation needs some tweaking, we need to change some things; it is not as good as we hoped it would be. Or it might work out well. I hope the government is open enough to say so. We are introducing the first legislation like this in Australia, and I believe we have to be fully aware that when legislation is introduced for the first time, there will be some issues down the track.
I have no problem in saying that domestic violence does suck; it is not cool. That is the language of today. That is what we should be telling people. But, we really need to get back to the roots of why we have domestic violence. I believe the government, if it is really sincere about changing things, should set up some sort of committee to see what we are doing to reduce violence in our society. Where does it come from, and how can we change things for the better?
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the former member for Katherine, Mrs Fay Miller. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Department of Justice’s Administrative Continuing Professional Development Program participants. On behalf of honourable members I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 26)
(Serial 26)
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, the proposed new legislation is a matter of extreme importance to all in the community and the social damage, cost and upheaval caused by domestic violence is immeasurable and must be eliminated.
I am not sure if I heard the member for Arnhem correctly when she spoke, but my colleague, the member for Araluen, was not speaking against the mandatory reporting, she was speaking in regard to some of the issues that she believed were deficient in the legislation.
I will outline my areas of concern with the details of the bill and associated areas, places where, perhaps, the bill can be improved, and implementation issues that I see arising from the bill. I will give some real-life examples to support my issues of concern. In doing so, I do not believe that I am breaching any person’s trust; however, I need to provide this information to highlight areas of potential deficiencies in the legislation and inability to be implemented properly and fairly.
I extend my thanks to both the previous Justice minister and to the minister for Families for providing briefings on the legislation. Both these briefings were useful and informative, and helped me gain a better understanding of the issues and the legislation’s intent and structure. While both the ministers’ offices and departmental staff were cooperative in assisting with briefings, the same cannot be said for the Chief Minister.
I wrote to the Chief Minister on 7 January, in his capacity as Police minister, and I am still waiting for a reply to my letter. I was seeking details on the Domestic Violence Management Unit within NT Police and the protocols used by police when they attend domestic violence incidents in the community. I thought that the Chief Minister would want to work cooperatively with my side of politics, or any side of politics, to rid our community of this dreadful scourge. Alas, no, he does not see fit.
In researching the bill, I met with various allied health professionals, groups, some church people, police, and many different women and men, with an array of views on the subject matter. I do not believe that I could have spoken on the bill today unless I had talked with these people. It is through them that I have a better understanding and appreciation of this serious social and community problem. That is not to say that I know everything on the matter - I do not - as the matter is surrounded by a thick, black cloak and, at times, underground; that is where the tragedy lies.
Domestic violence has a multitude of definitions, and it is generally accepted that it is harm of any nature that involves physical, emotional, economic, or psychological actions within a domestic relationship that causes harm. While physical harm can be seen and recorded, the other forms of violence cannot be captured so well, hence a real picture of domestic violence is not really known. Added to this situation are many incidents going unreported for many reasons. Sadly, domestic violence has no boundaries. It does not respect any race, culture or age. It occurs in the young, the in-between ages and in the old. It is in urban settings, and the bush.
I support the intent of the legislation, but I do have concerns as to achieving real, positive outcomes that will see a reduction, if not elimination, of domestic violence, particularly in Aboriginal communities, where there are literacy and cultural issues that need to be confronted if this is to really work. I am not convinced that the mandatory reporting requirements will deter people from beating up others in their family home or elsewhere, unless there are considerable education programs, particularly in Aboriginal communities where English is sometimes the second or third language.
The legislation might make you and me, Madam Deputy Speaker, more vigilant in our civic or moral duties. However, I can find no evidence that the potential perpetrators of domestic violence will be dissuaded. How and why would it dissuade a person from a violent act against a family member? Let us take the case of a man who is violent towards his partner. He will not report himself, and I suspect neither will the woman, who would already be intimidated, suffer a loss of self-esteem and most likely be afraid. Many of the neighbours would not know that there will soon be a requirement to report; and even if they do, they still might not want to get involved.
What concerns me about this legislation is that it is reactive and is placing responsibility for criminal behaviour onto health and allied health professionals, and giving them a role in the criminal justice system. What also concerns me is: how far does the definition of ‘health care people’ extend? Who will it scoop up? Understandably, doctors, nurses, dentists, psychologists, physiologists, but what about the feet people, X-ray people and the pharmacists? Is the local pharmacist going to be responsible to report what he or she thinks is a person who has suffered serious harm? And what about the allied health professionals, who does that scoop up? Naturopaths, massage people? Beauticians can make life very relaxed and provide care for one’s health, are they going to be obliged to report? My understanding is that they will be obliged to report. Clearly there is a role for government to educate people, and I believe this will be a massive undertaking. I hope the resources have been allocated appropriately.
What protocols will be developed for these people and by whom? How can one expect a young allied health professional to understand and know about domestic violence outcomes on a person? How will government regulate this part of the legislation? How will government know that a health professional, or anyone else for that matter, has not reported an incident of domestic violence?
I am aware of cases where women have presented themselves to the clinic in Aboriginal communities. This legislation will oblige the person to report the obvious violence and then action will be taken against the perpetrator. How will this actually work? What if the community does not have a police presence? Will the report then go to a place like Alice Springs or Tennant Creek? Maybe they will do it by telephone, and we know the problems with the police communication systems in both Darwin and Alice Springs at this point in time. Has the government given serious regard to how spread-out the Territory is? Do not get me wrong, I want this legislation to work, but I believe with a little more effort and thought we could have a better package.
We are not the first to introduce this kind of legislation; Tasmania tried, but it was unsuccessful in assent and implementation due to civil liberty issues. There is ample evidence elsewhere in the world, and I have researched it, where there is similar legislation. I wonder how much of the experience from that legislation has been drawn upon in drafting this legislation.
Which brings me to another area of concern - the definition of ‘harm’. The legislation says only people with ‘serious harm’ have to be reported, is that like a little pregnant? Currently, if you really beat your missus to the extent that she is gravely ill and in danger, you will get into trouble; but if you beat her just a little, that is okay and you will not be reported. Where is the logic in that? I believe it is very sad that the government seems to differentiate between levels of harm and some people will get help and others will not.
Ms Lawrie: All harm is an offence.
Ms PURICK: Harm is harm, and this legislation by government is at odds with previous public statements by the government where they talk about violence - all violence - and domestic violence as harm.
We know that domestic violence can be a prelude to murder, and we have seen this clearly in the Northern Territory. We also know that domestic violence often starts as slapping and pushing, but can and does escalate quickly into serious and permanent harm, if not death. We need to stop all levels of violence in a domestic setting against all family members. What concerns me is that cases, that I will detail now, will go unreported under this legislation if harm is limited to ‘serious harm’ by definition, which I take to mean almost dying and permanent injury. How sad is that? You have to be really beaten up to warrant reporting.
I will detail a case now which only happened in the last two weeks. A friend of mine, who lives in Stuart Park, goes home at lunchtime for his meal breaks. When he turned into his driveway he heard muffled screaming and thought it was from the television, but suddenly a woman burst out of an adjoining unit screaming for help.
My friend assisted her and called the police. It turned out that her partner had a pillow over her face to muffle her cries for help while he was threatening to kill her. She had struggled to escape and scratched his neck and chest, leaving obvious scratches. After the police talked to both parties, they advised that a DVO order would be brought against her because she had injured him. It did not seem to matter to the police that a 15-month-old child had witnessed the attack and was being held by the man in the unit, which belonged to the woman.
How would this legislation cover a case like that? The woman was not permanently harmed, she was not disabled, she did not have broken arms and legs, but she could have been killed. Yet the police sided with the man who was trying to kill her with a pillow. This happened in the last two weeks in Stuart Park.
Another case I will detail illustrates how some women will slip through the cracks of this legislation because their condition will not be considered as serious physical harm. In the late 1980s, I travelled the track for work and along the way I would visit a family for rest and respite. On one such trip, I stopped on the way down and everything was all right, but on the return journey, my friend was sporting a black eye. I was taken aback but said nothing, as one does not comment on such matters, which are obviously personal and, in hindsight, I suspect my friend would have had a logical explanation. My friend offered no explanation.
Many years later my friend’s family moved to Darwin and I visited their home regularly. One Christmas, drinks were organised for Boxing Day, but in the morning my friend rang to say not to come as there had been a family problem. Without going into details, I went to her home. What confronted me was my friend with the ugliest and nastiest black eye. There was no white to be seen in her eyeball. In fact, the colour of her eye was gone also. The bruise was the length of her face. She had bruises the length of both arms, which were defensive bruising and she was bruised elsewhere.
Given the evidence in front of me, there was no way my friend would not have fallen down from the blow or blows, which in itself led to further injuries. Her husband was absent, which is just as well, from my perspective, and there were other friends present. I wanted my friend to go to hospital as I had concerns for her eye, the eye socket, and her cheekbone. My friend would not go because I know, now, she was embarrassed and ashamed. I spoke later with a police officer friend, and at the time the only person who could make a complaint was the victim themself. Thankfully, things have changed in the way we deal with such matters.
My point is that my friend’s injuries were not really life threatening. She was alive, walking, talking, and showing normal signs of reasoning, although some time elapsed before bruises come out. If it had been a life threatening situation, it occurred well before I arrived that morning. There is well-documented evidence that domestic violence escalates in intensity and seriousness with the passing of time. I believe this family had domestic violence during the length of the marriage. Maybe if the husband had returned to the family home and life had resumed, it would have become worse and I dread to think of the consequences. As it turned out, he never did return to the family home. For that I am thankful.
I believe under this legislation, my friend would have slipped through the cracks, and that is not right. That is wrong. Harm is harm, pain is pain, and violence is violence. Any domestic violence, regardless of what level or intensity, under my definition, is a crime, and a crime in the eyes of the law.
I turn my attention to the resourcing of the agencies to implement this legislation. In talking with many affected and interested people, I have concerns with the government’s commitment to adequately resource police to properly and fully implement the legislation. Let us be honest. It will be the police who will feel the full brunt of this legislation.
What I cannot get out of my mind or get my mind around are the two following situations. A family member reports domestic violence to the police, as they feel serious harm may befall the victim. Presumably, the police will have some protocols to handle the call, but I have seen no evidence – and the Chief Minister has not replied to me from early January - other than the police will use the triage system to work out which is the most serious case to attend to first. We know the police are already overworked and under-resourced, yet here we have again more workload, more reporting, presumably, yet no commitment from government for extra funds for police.
The government is allocating $15m, but it is over four years. If this government is really serious about stamping out and eliminating domestic violence, it should be $15m per year. And there is the situation of the health professionals reporting serious harm. Presumably, they will report to the police. How will the police take action? How will they charge the offender? Will it be the same day, or will it be some time later? How will they gauge the level of assault? And what will they charge the person with? Will the decision be left to a police officer who does not have medical knowledge? No disrespect to the police, but they are law enforcement officers, not medical people. And then what? The offender gets charged, released on bail, goes home, and then what? I shudder to think.
We had a chance to get this right, to work with the community and all those involved with this matter to try to eliminate domestic violence altogether. This legislation is a start in the right direction, but I do not believe it has been thought through properly. No disrespect to the many government officials who I know worked long and hard on this legislation; I understand that it is an extremely complex and sensitive issue, but I have concerns that the government has lost an opportunity to really lead the country, if not the world, as we are told it is.
We are the first place to put this kind of legislation in place and yet it is sadly wanting, and that is going to be the tragedy.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, the other day they opened a new women’s safe house at Nguiu. They called it ‘Pulintjawayu’, after a young woman I called daughter, who died a gory death at the hands of her serial, girl-basher de facto. Her case attracted quite a lot of media attention. The perpetrator was in breach of his parole for prior offending, and the coroner noted that the medical records of clinic attendances for treatment of my daughter’s injuries must have sounded alarm bells about what was going on. The coroner’s comments and the surrounding media attention were, no doubt, an important factor in building the momentum towards this day when Northern Territory legislation is enacted, making it mandatory to report domestic violence.
It is too late for the young girl that I call my daughter, and too late, perhaps, for the strong fighters and people I call mum. I particularly think of Kilapayu Puruntatameri, one of a group of Tiwi women principally responsible for pushing the safe house project forward until it became a reality. Teresita was interviewed on the occasion of the official opening of the safe house, and she said that during the years she suffered domestic violence there was no one to turn to for protection and she just had to survive it on her own. I certainly know that feeling.
I feel a deep sense of wariness as I speak on this topic today, a wariness I know I share with Teresita and so many other women who have suffered domestic violence. We have absorbed the physical blows and we bear the permanent mental scars. We carried on with our double lives of public decorum and private horror for as long as it took to make our homes safe and futures for our kids. Sometimes it was us women who had to go out on the slenderest of limbs and attempt intervention on behalf of another victim.
I have never forgotten the times when, as a relatively young woman, but already a wary and jaded mother, I stopped the partner of one of my closest friends from continuing with the merciless flogging he was giving her out in the street, having ripped off most of her clothes. I stopped him even though there was the threat of a loaded firearm. On other occasions, I have had to use all my powers of persuasion and confidence to remove firearms from drunk young men. I have seen too much of this in my life. The amendment of the Domestic and Family Violence Act to provide for mandatory reporting should be an automatic formality in this place.
Who would dare to speak against it? How could they justify it to the surviving victims of domestic violence whom I have encountered from one end of the Territory to the other?
There is a situation, and I have talked to my colleague, the Attorney-General, and I know there is a commitment that the government will look at it. We have set the benchmark and it is a high benchmark; it is not perfect, but it has set a benchmark. There needs to be some fixing up, but there is that guarantee from the Attorney-General - and I will go through some of the areas that I believe need to be looked at.
It is something I am quite passionate about; I have fought long and hard to get to this point, and I thank all of my Cabinet colleagues because it is not an easy decision when you have to look at the whole spectrum. You know when you have a piece of legislation there will be a number of areas which have to be brought in to make it work. A piece of legislation is just that - a piece of legislation - however, it is an important part of the armoury which is needed to deal with this scourge in our society. It is a world-first, it is an Australian first. Tasmania does have mandatory reporting, but this legislation is universal, and is the same, and as important a step, as our child protection legislation - it is universal, and communities, society, have a responsibility to do something.
My daughter, whom I talked about earlier, went 20 times to a clinic - 20 times - and three times this young girl was evacuated to Adelaide by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. There was very little support. When you read that Coronial and talk to Kilapayu and ask the women why they decided to name the safe house after her, it was to remind the young women of that community - and also the men - that it has to stop; that this violence against our young women cannot continue.
One of the areas I spoke to the Attorney-General about, and I know she will take up, is the situation where an offender who has breached a domestic violence order once or, perhaps many times, is convicted of doing the same thing again, but the conduct constituting the breach does not result in harm being caused to the protected person. I have seen too many times where women have a domestic violence order in place, but it does not result in stopping harm being caused to the protected person.
Under the former Domestic Violence Act, any kind of second or subsequent breach would trigger a minimum seven-day prison sentence. That uniform outcome has been qualified under section 121 of our new act to spare those offenders who breach an order from actual imprisonment because of complicit or contributing behaviour by the protected person. The new wording also provides an out for offenders who go to the home of a protected person without invitation or consent, and instil sheer terror, with the threat of harm being implicit and potential. Why should a second time offender in this category not be treated the same way as under the old legislation?
The second problem - and I had a look at the act where there was a case in which the Attorney-General could get her department involved. It is a recent case: Ashley v Marinov. In that instance, the appellant was a man who had struck the victim on the head causing some bleeding. The assault constituted a breach of the domestic violence order in force, which expressly stated that the appellant must not assault, cause or threaten to cause, personal injury to the protected person. He got off because he was charged with assault on the basis of provocation, which was no longer available to him, but the magistrate convicted him of breaching the DVO.
It was appealed. Justice Thomas upheld that result, but the final appeal to the Court of Appeal, ruled that the appellant had to be acquitted of the breach of DVO because he had already been tried in relation to the same facts in respect of the assault charge. The Court of Appeal made it clear that the outcome would have been the same, regardless of whether the appellant had been found guilty or not guilty of the assault charge.
I have spoken to a number of women who find themselves in this same predicament in terms of charges and that gap. That technical difficulty lies, not so much in the Domestic and Family Violence Act itself, but it goes to the Criminal Code, which confirms that double jeopardy is part of the law of the Territory. If an offender goes to the home of a protected person and assaults her, in breach of a DVO, the prosecution will have to choose whether to charge the perpetrator for the assault or for the breach of the DVO. Therefore, the mandatory minimum seven-day sentence under section 121 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act for a second or subsequent breach of the DVO will, almost always, never be imposed.
There are a number of possible solutions to this second problem. One would be to significantly increase the penalty for a second or subsequent breach of a DVO, where harm is caused to a protected person, so that the prosecution can have a realistic choice as to which charge should be proceeded with – the assault or the breach of the DVO. In the past, I have thought about the issue of mandatory sentencing. When we see the escalating violence occurring, particularly to our women, and going through it on a personal level - I know the devastation of the death of my Tiwi daughter, who I talked about at the start, and the impact on everyone in the community to deal with that - has made my view even stronger that mandatory sentencing and bringing that component back in has to happen. As well as signalling the mandatory reporting of these issues, I believe there have to be severe penalties that go with it. So it signals to these men in these communities, and everywhere, that they cannot and should not be violating these young women the way they are. All of us who go out to these communities see some men who think it is their right to control and lord it over these young women.
I listened to the member for Araluen’s contribution, and the whole issue of harm, I agree, just because the bruises are not visible – domestic violence comes in all shapes and forms, I believe, to many of these young women - and it is not just Aboriginal women. When I was running the health service in Katherine, a number of young, non-Indigenous women came to the Aboriginal Medical Service for support because they were terrified of being seen in the private clinics in Katherine. They came to the Aboriginal Medical Service because they knew that no other non-Indigenous people in Katherine would see them coming there, and they were able to get the support services. I joined the board of the Katherine Women’s Crisis Centre to try to deal with this issue - it was not just black women who were being bashed, there are non-Indigenous women also.
Yes, the violence amongst Aboriginal women is high and it needs to be dealt with, but there are so many silent victims amongst the non-Indigenous population. It concerns me, because sometimes we focus on Indigenous women, and we do need to fix up what is happening and closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, but at the same time there are young, non-Indigenous women in our community who are going through the same thing, with the shame and the unwillingness to deal with this.
Many of the young women I met in Katherine were strong courageous young women who were thousands of miles away from their family, may be on the eastern seaboard and they had no one. There was no one around, there was no family support, and there was no protection. They were left to deal with these issues of being violated behind closed doors and hiding the scars of what was happening to them on a daily basis.
Some of my colleagues on this side know my view and I know sometimes it can be seen as extreme, but witnessing it, seeing it, I believe extreme issues, such as this, need extreme action. I think not just of my Tiwi daughter who passed away; all of us know women who have passed away. I watched my own mother for 40 years. I heard the member for Arnhem, the minister for Families, talk about her mother and the violence.
I watched that as a kid. You know, 40 years of my life growing up was fuelled with it - alcohol fuelled violence. I went into the same type of relationship; it was alcohol fuelled violence. We all go through it and we have to make a stand. I drew the line in the sand even with my own son, because I do not believe that anyone owns another person; and should be able to control and have that level of control over anyone. To take that stance against my own son was probably one of the hardest things I had to confront. This was a young man who had to know where the line in the sand was drawn and, thankfully, he was able to get the support from me and his sisters. I worry because there are not a lot of young men, like my son, who can get that support to work with the anger and aggression which is in them and try to deal with it. It is not about making excuses for them. It is about getting them to take responsibility for their actions.
I want to talk about the bush court circuit and its infrastructure. It is an issue in my electorate of Maningrida which has been brought to my attention. When a bush court is sitting, and particularly if a young woman takes out a domestic violence order or has to give evidence, the perpetrator or a family member of the perpetrator could be sitting directly behind the victim. We need to provide protection for victims of crime, and we should be able to provide whatever support needs to be put in place, particularly with infrastructure.
Maningrida is only one community, but unless something is changed in the court circuit in Maningrida, whether it is victims or perpetrators, hearings will have to go to Jabiru. It concerns me that people will have to go to from Maningrida to Jabiru. During the Dry Season it might be all right, but in the middle of the Wet they have no access. Who pays? Particularly if it is a victim. We need to look at those support structures.
Attorney-General, I know that you will look at the infrastructure and the way evidence is given, particularly for those young women. Many young women I have spoken to in remote communities have said they want to be able to proceed with charges against the offender within a couple of weeks. They have backed away from that, and a lot of that is pressure. But to have evidence given in a small court room in a community, where they are not afforded the same protection as other victims of crime, I believe needs to be looked at, otherwise we are not going to get the justice that these young women, and older women, deserve.
The issue of elder abuse and older grandmothers, who are being abused out in those communities, is also a problem and needs to be looked at. Attorney-General, the issues of infrastructure, and Aboriginal women giving evidence, particularly with domestic and family violence, need to be addressed.
I keep going back to issues of domestic violence and what is the factor which causes a much of it. Grog is still a major issue and I know I can sound like a broken record when it comes to alcohol but I will continue to say, like the member for Nelson and many others in this room, we need to deal with the issue of alcohol. Even though our government bought in a fantastic review, and the former Minister for Justice did much in terms of the alcohol courts and compulsory treatment orders - all of those have to be brought together, all of that armoury.
We have a whole lot of legislation, we have a whole lot programs and money but I believe it all has to come together, because having it fragmented does not save one life on the ground in those communities. If we are serious about this, which I know we are on this side of government, we have commitment and funding, but we have to bring that entire armoury together to make a difference.
It is an issue I feel strongly and passionately about and it is one which has drawn much debate. People have thought mandatory reporting means people are not going to come forward, they are not going to see a doctor, and they are not going to seek the help they need. We have never had that sort of system in place so that is all anecdotal evidence. A long time ago people said that about mandatory reporting in relation to child abuse. I take the view that if a woman is being abused, you can bet your bottom dollar the child is also; that behind every women being abused there are children.
It is not a matter of standing back and saying nothing and doing nothing, because it is not just about that woman, it is about the children who are with that woman. If we look at all the victims and talk to these women, they all wish they had someone who intervened and helped them. Talk to the children. Often the debate gets lost in relation to the little ones who are the silent victims in all this violence. Ultimately, they are the ones this is for, because unless we break the cycle of violence, we are never going to be able to deal with it appropriately.
I wish the Attorney-General and the government all the best. It is good legislation, but there are some gaps we need to plug to bring everything together. I believe this legislation and what we are doing is right for all those women who are survivors of domestic violence, and also the women who have lost their lives. It is not an issue of politics amongst any of us, because every member who stands in this Chamber is committed to fighting and doing something.
We should all remember that issues like this go above any political divide, and that we all need to work together to make it safe; not just for women but also for the little ones out there.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, today I give my qualified support to this bill. First, I advise the House that some of the content of the debate that I intend to put before members this afternoon are excerpts from submissions that I have received in relation to this bill. I received no instructions from the authors as to whether they wish to be named; however, I acknowledge their contributions.
Domestic violence cannot be tolerated in our society and must be stopped. I have seen some horrible things in my time. I am passionately against all forms of domestic violence, including emotional and physiological abuse, physical abuse, and sexual assault. Positive action must be taken through all levels of society to minimise domestic violence and its impacts. Everyone has, at the very least, a moral responsibility to ensure they do their bit to stop or prevent domestic violence from occurring.
It is incumbent on the governments of all states and territories to enact legislation which will provide a framework for the protection of our society. It is also incumbent on the government, in making that framework - in this case domestic violence - to prepare and pass legislation that does a number of things. In the first instance, legislation must provide for the definitions of what constitutes domestic violence, upon whom it is perpetrated, and who should be considered as the perpetrator. In other words, it needs to set out clearly and without ambiguity what domestic violence is, who is the victim, and who is the offender. It must make orders available that can be made out in terms that are simply understood, yet carry sufficient complexity to ensure that the spirit of protection of the victim is upheld.
There must be a sentencing regime that carries with it no mistake as to the seriousness of breaching orders that are designed to protect victims of domestic violence. Contained within that sentencing regime, there will be matters that should be considered by sentencing judges and magistrates to provide them with their own framework around which they can formulate appropriate sentences. These sentences must follow recognised sense in principles that provide the right balance of protection for the victim and of society generally, options for rehabilitation of the offender, and general and specific deterrents.
Legislation must always address the real issue - in this case domestic violence. In saying that, legislation must never be passed in this House just so the government of the day can include it as notch on their belt. This is called lip service, and provides nothing more than unhealthy and unworkable law. I believe this bill, to make reporting domestic violence mandatory in certain circumstances is, at best, lip service.
I believe that this legislation is probably the most ill-conceived and poorly thought through I have had the misfortune of having to review in my various roles. Moreover, it does not take into account how the legislation will work on the ground. It is shallow and does not represent just how complex domestic violence really is.
Domestic violence is a complex issue. It is not simply a case of man hits woman, woman hits man, or man hits child. The government, that directed Parliamentary Counsel to draft this bill, obviously has little or no understanding of domestic violence or its complexities. Often times, domestic violence is rooted deep in the psyche of both the perpetrator and the victim. To illustrate this, one only has to look at the research which has been done in relation to generational domestic violence. It is widely accepted that children who grow up in a family where domestic violence is committed regularly have a higher chance of growing up to become either domestic violence victims or perpetrators.
One only needs to look at the many domestic violence victims who are afraid to leave their violent relationship. This fear is rooted in their minds, often on a number of levels. Victims may fear that they will lose their children if they leave a relationship. They may feel that having a partner, albeit one who bashes them, is better than having no partner at all. Victims may fear further violence and reprisals from their violent partner if they leave the relationship.
I know of domestic violence victims who, having left the relationship, left the state in which they lived, changed phone numbers, told only their most trusted family members where they were going, still live in fear of being found and dealt with by their former violent partners. I know of another case where a young lady was savagely bashed by her partner. She was punched and kicked; she was hospitalised and miscarried her unborn child, but she continued to stay in that relationship being bashed, mentally abused, and raped for a further two years before she was able to seek assistance. She was so deeply scarred by the relationship that she has only just stopped having nightmares about it. It took her about 10 years to reach that point, and if my memory serves me correctly, she is probably about 30 years of age now. In that particular case, no one knew that this young lady was going through this horror, because she hid the fact that her injuries were a result of domestic violence.
Where would mandatory reporting have left that young lady? I will tell you where - in the same position she was right then. I believe it is a fait accompli that the amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Act will pass through this House today. It does beg the question, however: why will the Northern Territory be the only Australian jurisdiction with mandatory reporting of domestic violence? I hazard a guess that other jurisdictions have a better grip on the complexities of domestic violence than this government does. They realise that legislation is not a silver bullet.
One advocacy group I spoke to said:
- Unlike mandatory reporting of child abuse whereby children are considered not able to make decisions in their best interest, mandatory reporting of domestic
violence will take away the right of women to make decisions which are best for them. Each experience of domestic violence is different and some women
remain in abusive relationships for valid reasons such as religious or cultural beliefs or for fear that they or their family will be harmed or even killed if they leave.
Let us have a look at some of the implications of this legislation. Over the past few months, I have canvassed the issues surrounding this bill with a number of stakeholders that included: counsellors, women’s refuge workers, members of the legal fraternity, and police officers. I note that this bill was put out for public comment before being brought back before the House.
If you take the minister’s tabling statement at face value, a paltry two weeks was set aside to receive public comment. I note that the government has chosen not to table the responses that were received during the consultation period. It would be interesting to see what those responses say; no matter what opinion they represent. I would like to see the public comment that came in during that two week period, and, I dare say, most people in the Northern Territory, who are interested in the outcome of the debate this afternoon, would also like to see those comments.
I know some of the submissions sent to the government form part of this debate today, because those same submissions were sent to me. During the course of the consultation I had with stakeholders on this bill, not one person supported this bill. In fact, there was at least one advocacy group that wrote to the Prime Minister of Australia asking him to intervene to stop the Northern Territory enacting this bill in favour of adopting a whole-of-government approach.
Comments on the bill varied from one professional group to another. Rightly so, each representative organisation focused on the matters they felt affected them or they were most qualified to comment on. It was generally felt that mandatory reporting would initially cause a spike in the number of reports of domestic violence, and this would have a number of immediate flow-on effects. With the assent of this bill into law, an increase in DV reporting, I believe, is almost beyond any argument. I gather that government would be prepared for the spike in reporting. I have some significant concerns about how this would be dealt with on the ground. I am not entirely sure what they intend doing with those increased reports.
First, the police, who are already under-resourced, will find they have to deal with the increased reporting. The Chief Minister constantly crows about those extra police officers; I cannot believe how out of touch the Chief Minister is on that issue. I know, as do all police officers I speak with and most of the general public, this so-called increase in numbers has had no impact on the number of officers on duty in general duties.
These are the officers who will need to respond to the spike in domestic violence reporting which will, no doubt, occur once this bill is passed and brought into law. On some days, Casuarina station cannot even fill two general duties patrols. I spoke to a friend last night who works in a non-operational area. She has to be pulled out of her non-operational area to fill a patrol in Casuarina. I know at times Palmerston suffers the same fate; sometimes there is only one patrol and a supervisor on. I do not know how they are going to cope with the increased workload. No matter how you spin the statistics, there is a severe shortage of general duties police on patrol in the streets of the Northern Territory.
Chief Minister, what you need to do is provide more police officers, but you need to direct the Commissioner of Police to make sure those officers are not diverted into uniform, driving around in marked police cars.
My first question is: where will the police find the resources to deal with the increased reports of domestic violence? No one knows. No one I spoke to in the police force knows. It will not come from the Domestic and Personal Violence Protection Unit, because they are already stretched.
Second, the increased reporting means there will be more domestic violence victims and their children. Many of these victims and their children will need to find emergency accommodation. My question is: where will they be housed? The Katherine Women’s Shelter, for example, operates at about 90% occupancy most of the time. They have only 23 beds for women and children. One extra person per night, as a result of mandatory reporting, will put them over the edge every night. I am not even going to start on how they might be able to cope without additional staff as well. That is a whole other issue I could spend an enormous amount of time on.
Right now, there is only one dedicated domestic violence counsellor in Katherine. Will her workload double, or triple, or even more? No one knows. Once the initial spike in reporting subsides, what then? Reporting will probably drop, but not because there is less domestic violence, and not because the government has found a silver bullet to solve the problem; it will drop because those victims, who do not want their abusive partners reported, will change their behaviour.
It is quite conceivable that the following scenario might occur, and I quote from a submission I received:
‘Sally’ is a 25-year-old lady from an Indigenous community. She has two children with her partner ‘James’ and she is pregnant with a third.
One night she is the victim of a violent attack by James. He hit her twice and she received a black eye and fell to the ground as a result of
the strike. He has previously not been violent towards Sally.
She is aware James has been in trouble with the courts for violence in a bar fight before and, as a result of section 78BA of the Sentencing Act,
he faces certain gaol if he is found guilty of a further violent offence. She cares about him and does not want the matter to be reported or her
partner to go to gaol. She is not sure if she has received internal injuries to her or her unborn baby.
She feels physically okay but is not sure if she should go to the hospital for a check up. She is concerned about going to the local clinic/hospital
because if she does the police will be called and her husband potentially gaoled.
Sally is confident that this is a family matter that she can resolve with James.
Sally should not be placed in this situation of having to choose between her partner and her own and her unborn child’s welfare.
Many other equally disturbing situations can be predicted where victims facing life threatening illnesses of their own may choose not to attend
hospital for emergency treatment for fear of having their partners reported and possibly gaoled. The bill will increase the number of women
who make decisions to protect their partners in favour of their own health and with potentially tragic consequences.
The overriding sentiment, common to all the groups who provided me with comment, was that mandatory reporting will not reduce the incidence – not on its own. Counsellors and those who work at women’s refuges feel that mandatory reporting will drive domestic violence underground. For the reasons I stated previously, victims, who do not want their partners to be reported, will go to extraordinary lengths to hide the signs of violence. That is typified by the example I gave earlier of the lady who miscarried in hospital after being bashed.
Conceivably, victims who receive serious injuries will avoid all authorities, including medical assistance. Not only that, but previously confidential service providers will no longer be able to provide confidentiality to their clients. Service providers include lawyers, counsellors, refuge workers, and a whole range of services which deal with domestic violence victims.
In the case of lawyers, I am aware that the government has received a number of submissions from various legal advocacy groups. Where is there an exemption for lawyers from breaking professional, legal privilege in this bill? There is none. I quote from a submission I received:
- As the High Court has found, client legal privilege is a fundamental principle of our judicial system. As Justice Deane stated in Attorney-General NT v Maurice:
- That general principle is of great importance to the protection and preservation of the rights, dignity and freedom of the ordinary citizen under the law and to the
administration of justice and law in that it advances and safeguards the availability of full and unreserved communication between the citizen and his or her
lawyer and in that it is a precondition of the informed and competent representation of the interests of the ordinary person before the courts and tribunals of the
land. Its efficacy as a bulwark against tyranny and oppression depends upon the confidence of the community that it will in fact be enforced. … The right of
confidentiality, which the principle enshrines has recently, and correctly, been described in the European Court of Justice as a practical guarantee and a
necessary corollary of fundamental, constitutional or human rights …
- As the Australian Law Reform Commission stated in a recent report, legal professional privilege is also practically necessary for the administration of justice, in that it
encourages full and frank disclosure, encourages compliance, discourages litigation, encourages settlement and promotes the efficient operation of the adversarial system.
Before taking instructions … lawyers will have to advise our clients that any disclosures about domestic violence may result in the … lawyer having to break their duty of
confidentiality to the client and disclose information to the police. We believe that this advice will be massively detrimental to the relationship of trust between our lawyers
and our clients, a trust which is particularly important where there are cultural and language barriers.
We believe that regardless of advising our clients of the mandatory reporting requirements, … lawyers will nonetheless at times be advised by our clients of situations which
give rise to the obligation to report. In these circumstances, we will have to advise our clients that we must disclose this information and in most circumstances, we will have to
stop acting for the client either because the client no longer trusts … or because a … lawyer is a potential witness in proceedings. We believe that this will have major
consequences for the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission (who currently rarely represent clients in remote communities) and for courts, if clients have to be unrepresented
because NTLAC is unable to represent them (for the same reason as NAAJA).
We are also concerned about circumstances where a client does not report previous domestic violence following the initial advice from their lawyer about mandatory reporting
provisions. There are two important potential consequences for a client who does not disclose such information (because they do not wish the information to be reported to police):
Such referrals are provided to clients who disclose that they have been victims of domestic violence as well as clients who disclose they have been perpetrators.
Where the client wishes us to, … assists with appropriate referrals, such as by arranging psychological services or counselling, providing support for priority
housing applications and providing intake information for the Indigenous Family Violence Offender Program. On occasion, … also provides referrals to police
and prosecution services, but importantly, this is only done on the client’s instructions.
have grown up witnessing domestic violence. This is important information for a Court when considering an appropriate sentence, including whether to impose
conditions requiring attendance at treatment and counselling facilities.
Interestingly, other groups that share some form of client confidentiality include Centrelink and Territory Housing, both services that are likely to be used when a domestic violence victim is seeking emergency payments or accommodation. These organisations will have an obligation under this amendment.
I move to a conundrum that this legislation poses. It is appalling to think that this issue seems to have slipped under the government’s radar. Sexual assault is a highly unreported, yet significant contributor to domestic violence. Where in the bill is there any reference to mandatory reporting of sexual assault? There is none. In my reading of the legislation, a victim can walk to her neighbour with a broken arm, and that neighbour would be bound by mandatory reporting. Yet, the same victim can walk to the same neighbour, having been sexually assaulted by her partner, and no such mandatory regime exists.
If you look at the penalty continuum, in determining the relative seriousness of serious harm versus sexual assault, section 181 of the Criminal Code provides for 14 years as a maximum penalty for serious harm; yet sexual assault, under section 192 of the same act, carries a maximum penalty of life. Common sense tells us that a more serious offence should have at least the same treatment as far as mandatory reporting provisions as proposed in this bill.
Madam Speaker, emotional, financial, and psychological abuse feature heavily in domestic violence statistics. Emotional and psychological abuse has been found, in some cases, to have longer lasting and more significant impact on victims than physical abuse. Where in this bill is there any reference to this kind of abuse? No where.
It is always easy to criticise, and I give the government a bit of a lifeline about how they might go about dealing with domestic violence in our society. This issue needs and warrants a comprehensive whole-of-government strategy that incorporates community education, early intervention and prevention, adequate support and accommodation services, appropriate legal responses, and clearer guidelines for police in removing the perpetrator rather than the victim of domestic violence from the family domicile.
I relate a true example of how education can help to address domestic violence. Not so long ago, a woman and her two children, both young teenagers, and the victims of domestic violence, found themselves seeking emergency accommodation in one of our women’s crisis centres. Because of the nature of their situation, they stayed at the emergency accommodation for a number of months. I am advised that victims and children staying for that length of time is not an uncommon practice. The three of them, during that lengthy period, received ongoing education, support and counselling from the staff at the crisis centre. After returning to their home, the children, a boy and a girl, now capable of recognising the signs of domestic violence, began to take a stand and intervene when they saw the precursors of domestic violence occurring. That is an example of how a simple concept such as a proper education program, that is funded and resourced appropriately, can make a difference.
There is a raft of measures that should be thoroughly investigated, and I am going to give the government another helping hand. I have plenty of my own work to do, but if the government wants me to do their work as well, that is fine. Without trying too hard, I managed to find a document titled Te Rito, a New Zealand family violence prevention strategy. I do not suppose anyone from the government has seen the document, but if they have - good on them. This is a comprehensive road map for dealing with domestic violence in the Maori community. There are many parallels that can be drawn between the Indigenous people from across the Tasman and our own. This is a relevant document, and an example of how the process of dealing with domestic violence should be done. As I look through it, legal enforcement attracts the merest of mentions, whilst the predominant focus is on the 17 other areas of action identified. If the government would like a copy of this document, I am happy to provide it to them.
The last matter I wish to deal with is that of enforcement of the offence encapsulated in this amendment. While the offence is really a catch-all, that is, everyone commits the offence if they do not report serious harm, etcetera, as per the wording of the amendment; there is an equally broad defence provided for: ‘I thought the other person reported it’. That is the bottom line. That is how far people will have to go when they think of an excuse for not reporting domestic violence.
Conceivably, any person, spoken to by the police in relation to an offence under this bill, merely has to say: ‘I thought someone else reported it’. Does that on its own make this legislation all but completely useless? I suggest so. This is what I mean about lip service and unhealthy and unworkable law. Why would you create such a catch-all offence, only to provide such a broad defence for it? This renders the legislation useless. My only answer to the question is that the government do not have the depths within their ranks to come up with anything better.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that an extension of time be granted, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My concerns go deeper than that. The police are serious about doing their bit to stamp out domestic violence, and rightly so. They have detailed guidelines which they are bound to follow in dealing with domestic violence. My fear is this: the police domestic violence guidelines will change to adopt this amendment. This could result in them having no discretion in how they deal with investigations and prosecutions under these new provisions. This will drastically increase their current workload, block the court system and ultimately continue to fill the already over-full corrections system and gaol. The new $300 000m prison, which is due for completion in 2013, will probably be full by 2015.
Thoughtful, well-written legislation can and should be a part of the supporting framework for a much broader approach to dealing with domestic violence. If this government is too lazy to put in the work to come up with a comprehensive approach to domestic violence, or if it is too short-sighted to realise legislation on its own will never be the ever-elusive silver bullet, then shame on it. I have it on good authority, that the vast majority of comment from the public and various advocacy groups is that this legislation is not supported. I also have it on good authority that the government went against the advice of its own people on the fifth floor and still chose to pursue this path. It will be interesting to see where this goes over the course of the next few years.
It is important for me to remind this House that much of what I have said today is a reflection of what many people told me to be their position. I suspect that had I not brought these opinions and points of view to this House today, the government would not have chosen to do so either - so much for transparent government. I will not place myself, or this side of the House, in the position of being accused of not supporting any measure that may save one victim of domestic violence.
Therefore, on the basis that one person may be rescued from the ravages of an abusive relationship because someone felt legally compelled to report a serious domestic incident, and in the spirit of my very strong personal feeling that we should try anything to stop domestic violence, I will support this bill. However, I put the government on notice; by its shallow attempts to solve a complex problem with simplistic legislation is a slap in the face to every sufferer of domestic violence now and in the future. A large number of advocacy and professional groups have given it the same answers and it has ignored much of the best advice it received.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spoken before on this bill, as the former Attorney-General in the second reading speech, but I have asked the opposition, the members for Port Darwin and Araluen, if they objected to me seeking leave to speak in the debate of this very important bill, and they agreed.
I seek leave of the House for me to speak on this bill.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Deputy Madam Speaker, and I thank opposition members for granting me this privilege of speaking twice on this particular bill.
The member for Katherine underlined the difficulties and complexities in the process of the issue we are dealing with and, as the former Health Minister and former Attorney-General …
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are correct; we do not have a quorum. Ring the bells, please.
Thank you, we have a quorum. Minister, you may resume.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very important bill and I thank members of the House for affording me the opportunity to speak a second time on this particular bill.
It is a very complex issue and, as the member for Katherine alluded to, there are concerns among a whole range of groups about this bill: the legal profession, the medical profession, the nursing profession, those who work in this particular area in shelters and refuges, and those who have the role of counselling. It certainly has raised a lot of issues and the member for Katherine is right, a number, in fact the overwhelming majority of people who responded to the first round of consultations, which was specifically about making it mandatory for health professionals to report, were negative in their comments. The second round of consultations on universal mandatory reporting for serious harm, responded similarly.
It is an issue that government has wrestled with for some time. I admire the member for Araluen, who has been consistent in her call for mandatory reporting for domestic violence over a long period of time; no one could doubt her commitment. Also, the commitment of the member for Arafura, within Cabinet, and others, such as the members for Macdonnell and Arnhem.
I do not want to politicise what I am going to say, but I was disappointed with the member for Araluen’s criticism of the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, when she asserted that the former Chief Minister did not really care much about the issue of domestic violence and had sat on her hands - that was the insinuation - on this issue.
We have found, through the member for Katherine and his contribution, what a complex issue this is. We are not really supposed to talk about Cabinet deliberations, but another champion of making domestic violence mandatory was the former Attorney-General, Syd Stirling. A catalyst for that was the sad and tragic death of - I will call her Ms JP - the relation of the member for Arafura who died as a consequence of repeated domestic violence from her husband, and a failure of the system. The Coroner found a clear failure of the system, both within Corrections and Health, in addressing this issue. The former Attorney-General, Syd Stirling, and all the Cabinet were - upset is not the word – devastated by that particular case and took it very seriously.
The genesis of what we are debating today – and the member for Araluen has been a strong advocate for this for many years - is something the government has been considering - all the issues and more, you could probably multiply by five, all the legitimate issues the member for Katherine raised, and it is very important that the member for Katherine raised those issues – the government considered those issues.
The government considered the issue, first, of mandatory reporting for health professionals. Obviously, the response of the AMA and the ANF was: ‘If you make it mandatory reporting there are a few issues. First, people are not going to present for medical treatment; they will be dissuaded from presenting for medical treatment. Second, it puts health professionals, particularly those who may be in remote communities, where there may or may not be a police presence, potentially in danger because of payback’.
However, the government considered those particular aspects. First, in relation to both medical privilege and legal privilege, the government examined the fact that in the mandatory reporting of child abuse, there was no privilege for either of those professions. We felt that this particular issue was so important that we needed to extend mandatory reporting into this realm. That is an important issue to bring forward; the government did consider those issues.
We considered the issue raised by, I believe, the member for Goyder, and others, about women, particularly women who are the victims, feeling a loss of control at being unable to make decisions about whether it should be reported or not. That issue was discussed.
However, overwhelmingly, we saw the case of Ms JP - the tragic case – and we resolved we did not want to see that type of thing happen again, particularly that level of offending. That should never have happened, and that is why the government looked at all the options. The member for Araluen is quite right; the definition of domestic violence is quite broad and covers a whole range of categories. However, the government decided that this was such a major step - it had been proposed in Tasmania but never implemented - and our understanding is that there are very few, if any, jurisdictions worldwide that have this measure.
The government wanted to be very clear about what the level of harm was, because it could come about through self-reporting. If someone presents at the clinic and says: ‘My partner bashed me up’; that is clear cut, or it may be clear cut. Or if someone presents with an injury and does not want to talk about it, or gives another reason for that injury, it is by deduction, which puts some responsibility on the health care providers to make the decision about reporting.
That is why we have set it at the level. The government is not ignoring the lower level of offending, which the member for Araluen talked about; we are not ignoring that. I am flagging - and I know the Attorney-General will flag it – that, in future, the government will be prepared to take more steps in this regard. But this is an incredibly important and significant first step, and I do not think it should be talked down. The government acknowledges that further steps will need to be taken.
However, we need to be very clear about the first step, because what we are trying to avoid, cut off and stop is the really serious end, which eventuated in the tragic case of Ms JP, so that people in the health clinic will report it; if there is someone in Corrections who is aware of it, they will report it; if there is someone in a school who is aware of it, or in some other agency, they have a responsibility - we all have a responsibility. That is what this bill is all about.
The government realises what the member for Katherine has alluded to. People, for various reasons, in various organisations, do not fully support the step that the government has taken. However, we have had many discussions on this side about this issue, and there are strong feelings. I found it difficult because, as Health minister and Justice minister, the departmental feedback raised many of the issues that the member for Katherine was talking about. But it was this government that had the courage to take a stand and take this step. I have listened very carefully to the debate in this place today. To some degree, I am an outsider in this debate. Unlike others in this House who very honestly lay their personal experiences and their family’s experiences on the Parliamentary Record, and their true feelings before this parliament - which takes courage - and I listened very carefully.
That has not been my experience; that is why I feel, to some degree, I am an outsider. I am an outsider because I have not had the experience that police officers have had in dealing with this particular problem. The member for Araluen, through the legal system, has also had to deal with these cases and she has friends in the legal profession with whom she talks and further appreciates the issues. I am a 60-year-old male and I am an outsider, but I cannot help but be moved by what I have heard today and around our Caucus and our Cabinet table, and also, by the propositions put forward by the member for Araluen.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I fully support this legislation. There are some aspects I believe the Attorney-General will correct. I listened carefully to the member for Araluen, and I will read the Hansard tomorrow, I could have misunderstood her, but she seemed to be saying that physical harm, including unconsciousness, would not be included under the definition of ‘serious harm’ within the specifications of this act. I have been advised that this is not the case; but maybe that is not what the member for Araluen was saying.
The new section 124A(6) states: ‘harm means physical harm that is serious harm’, and section 1A of the Criminal Code defines ‘physical harm’. I am advised that something like unconsciousness, physical harm that is serious harm, and certainly unconsciousness is part of that, would be included because Part 1 Section 1 of the Criminal Code says:
serious harm means any harm, (including the cumulative effect of more than one harm):
(a) that endangers, or is likely to endanger a person’s life, or
(b) that is or is likely to be significant and long-standing.
In response to the submissions we received from various groups, particularly women’s shelters and other shelters, we included that it would be a defence if someone was involved in planning to remove the victim from a serious and imminent threat and intended to report once the victim was removed from the threat. That is how the government responded to concerns that were put to it. If there is escape planning going on, rather than compromise that escape planning - because we are talking about someone who is under threat of serious physical harm or under imminent threat of domestic violence - I believe that is a sensible way to give some flexibility to this particular law.
If a report were made as soon as practical, a serious or imminent threat to someone’s life or safety may result. That is the scenario in a health clinic, possible in a remote area. The government has a policy of doing away with single nurse posts - there may be two left in the Territory - for a range of reasons. Even if it was a double nurse post - there may or may not be a police presence - there could be a threat of reprisal against a health professional or someone else, from either the perpetrator or their family, and they should have the flexibility to be able to make that report when it is safe to do so. It does not absolve them of the responsibility of making the report; it gives them the flexibility to make the report at the appropriate time.
The legislation is in response to a major problem in the Northern Territory. The government is not pretending that this is a magic silver bullet to solve the problem of domestic violence in the Northern Territory. That is why - and I am sure the Attorney-General and others will speak about this - $15m was allocated to education for a range of programs to address this issue. It is sending out a very positive and powerful message to the community that domestic violence is unacceptable.
In summary, the government acknowledges that there are great challenges in terms of this particular act and the government has considered them carefully. It has been courageous and audacious to move forward with this and send a clear message to the community. Some in the opposition have reservations, and I understand those reservations, but I ask the opposition to join with us in a bipartisan way …
Mr Elferink: We have.
Dr BURNS: Good, I welcome that from the member for Port Darwin. I am glad we are joined together in a bipartisan way to send a strong message out to the community of the Northern Territory that domestic violence is unacceptable.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: There are some relatively minor amendments to clean up; some housekeeping in relation to make corresponding laws to include repeal laws of another state or territory, or New Zealand, of those repeal laws provided for the equivalent to a domestic violence order. That was in response to comments by police that because of the legality there were difficulties in applying a breach of a domestic violence order under a previously repealed act or an act that was in existence in New Zealand. I believe that is a sensible amendment.
It is also clarifying the explanation of the domestic violence order to a defendant. Police felt there were elements which were cumbersome. It has expedited that on the basis of advice from police, while still giving some certainty to the perpetrator that their obligations under a domestic violence order will be explained to them in a meaningful and understandable manner. It is very important that people get the message. Police officers are trained to deliver those messages.
I have covered the main elements I wanted to cover in my offering to this debate. It has been a difficult road. It is not an easy subject and there are complexities. I thank members from this side for their support, and I thank members from the other side for their support for this very important bill. Their concerns are noted on this side of the House and the Attorney-General will no doubt speak about that. This is a government that has taken a whole range of steps in terms of domestic violence and we are prepared to take more; this is one of those major steps.
I thank members for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important bill a second time.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support this important legislation – the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2008. This bill is linked to a key policy objective of my government: to put a halt to domestic violence. This is a historic day for the Northern Territory. We believe we are the first jurisdiction, around the world, that has gone as far as we have to make it mandatory for people to report domestic violence; if anyone is either a witness to it or believes that a person’s life is in imminent danger, or under threat of serious assault, to report it.
I wonder, as the debate has been unfolding and the prevalence of domestic violence in our community, why it has taken us so long. It has taken a long time to get to this point. It has been an intense debate, but if parliament is to really reflect the will of the people through its elected representatives, I believe everyone - every Territorian - would say that domestic violence is unacceptable; as all violence is unacceptable. It seems to me that this is a big step we are taking today, but it is a logical step and I am sure that it is a step that will be supported by all Territorians who think about this particular issue.
My government has zero tolerance to crime and domestic violence of any sort, but especially abhorrent crimes of violence by men against women and children. We have to do whatever we can to help break the cycle of domestic and family violence and protect women and children from violence. We will hear, and we have heard in debate today, some very personal experiences of domestic violence and how traumatic, damaging, and challenging the issue is to deal with in any family. I am fortunate to be able to stand here and say that - and I am fortunate - within my immediate family circumstance, we have had many problems within my extended family, but this particular problem is not amongst them. But, amongst friends and colleagues, I have been touched by this particular crime and have seen firsthand, as we all have, the absolute destruction that domestic violence and the fear of that repeated and ongoing violence has on families, and it is time to say enough is enough.
This bill, which creates a mandatory reporting law for abuse within a domestic relationship which causes serious physical harm, is further evidence of the government’s resolve. The Labor government has implemented numerous initiatives over the past years to highlight what domestic violence is, to get domestic violence out of the closet, to give victims confidence to report domestic violence, and to deal adequately with the perpetrators of this repugnant behaviour.
The Northern Territory Police is one of the agencies that have led the way on a number of fronts. Following a strategic research project, the NT Police implemented the inaugural Violent Crime Reduction Strategy in December 2004. This strategy provided for a comprehensive policing response, particularly to the insidious crimes committed within the context of domestic or family relationships, and has resulted in a significant change in the way police, and the broader community, view and relate to domestic violence. The policing response since the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy, otherwise known as the VCRS, was launched has seen a dramatic increase in the number of police-initiated domestic violence orders, and rigorous enforcement of domestic violence orders.
From the time the VCRS was implemented, there was a significant jump in the numbers of domestic violence-related crimes detected and reported. I have the statistics which I will articulate in this debate. We have the graphs, which have been produced by the police, relating to the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy 2008, and these graphs and statistics demonstrate that, since the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy was launched in 2004, there has been a significant increase in the reporting of domestic violence and assaults, and it is those numbers that have actually driven up the statistics in regards to violence and violent crimes in the Northern Territory.
We have had the debate in this House over and over again, when the opposition joyfully and gleefully grabs hold of every Justice quarterly crime report where there has been another spike in crimes of violence. They have tried to use those numbers to initiate and whip up fear in the community that violent crime is out of control in the Northern Territory, that it is increasing, and people are to be fearful of walking the dog at night or walking along the beach, because violent crime is out of control, as demonstrated by the figures that they hold up.
I have asserted that those figures are not good news, but what they do show is that women have increased confidence to report, and they are reporting acts of domestic violence in numbers that have never been seen before in the Northern Territory. Women have the confidence that the police will follow up, the police will ensure that domestic violence orders are adhered to and, if not, there are dedicated police officers to breach those orders.
The tragedy of the increase in crime statistics is that for so long in the Northern Territory this was a crime hidden under the table, behind closed doors. Police did not have a focus on it; it was part of the culture of: ‘it is all within the family, it has nothing to do with us’. The terror and horror of domestic violence was hidden behind closed doors, swept under the carpet.
The initiation of this police response in 2004 started to lift the lid on what is happening, tragically, across the Northern Territory. I will give you some numbers. The police PROMIS system recorded 2012 domestic violence-related offences in the year the VCRS was launched which, after implementation, jumped to 2795 the following year, with slight increases thereafter. That is a 25% increase in one year of people reporting, once the VCRS was launched. In one year, there were not 25% more assaults taking place; it was the fact that people had the confidence to report them.
Similarly, there was a significant increase in the number of police-initiated domestic violence orders, from 1355, at the time the VCRS was launched, to 2276 the following year, and increasing to 2594 in the 2007-08 period. That is around – again, mental arithmetic very quickly - a 70% increase in one year of police-initiated domestic violence orders. That is not that there were 70% more domestic violence incidents occurring that year in the Northern Territory; it was that the police had resources dedicated to this particular crime, and women had the confidence to report.
This increase in the detection and recording of domestic violence-related offences has represented the corresponding increase in assault statistics against the person. Thankfully, we saw a 13% fall in assaults in the September 2008 quarter and, within that total, of 4% in domestic violence assaults. For the 12 months ending September 2008, domestic violence-related assaults declined to 51% of assaults, compared to 55% for the corresponding period ending September 2007. I am advised that, for the 2007-08 financial year, 2594 domestic violence orders were initiated by police and, for the current financial year July to December, 527 domestic violence orders were initiated by police. This is a 9.6% decrease compared to the same period in 2007-08. I am also advised that 1848 offences were recorded for failing to comply with domestic violence orders in 2007-08, whilst for the current financial year, 833 offences were reported - a 9.8% decrease compared to the same time in 2007-08.
However, whilst the statistics appear to suggest the situation is improving, one domestic violence assault is one too many, and we do have to do more to stop these crimes. The numbers are horrendous, even though there is a slight decrease; and quarter by quarter you have to be very careful with establishing those numbers as a trend. But around 2800 reported domestic violence assaults every year across the Northern Territory, is 2800 tragic cases of trauma, hurt, and total family dysfunction that are being reported to police and much more goes unreported. There is still a long way to go.
The intense focus by police in this area is helping to shift attitudes within our community. It has led to increasing confidence by some victims to report crimes that previously have remained unreported. Victims of domestic violence are learning that police have a zero tolerance to this crime, and they will receive the support and protection they rightfully deserve when they bring it to the attention of the police. We can always do more. The Territory Police recently reviewed the VCRS and, on White Ribbon Day, 25 November 2008, launched the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy 2008, which I have here. This invigorated strategy is building upon the considerable efforts made to date in this area. Through the new DVO arrests, police aim to use problem-solving approaches to deter offending: disrupt the cycle of violence and minimise harm through early intervention and prevention; provide high quality and timely service delivery to prevent and minimise harm; investigate offences; and prosecute offenders.
This new VCRS broadens efforts to strengthen relationships between police and key stakeholders to further address the underlying issues of violent crime. As part of the VCRS, dedicated Domestic Violence Prevention Units were established in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs. Members within these units are responsible for assisting victims and referring them to specialist service providers. Additionally, these units target recidivist offenders, ensure that domestic violence orders are obtained, where appropriate, and that offenders are complying with orders.
I believe I have spoken of this in the House before as Police minister, and I have been Police minister on and off for quite a few years now. One awful moment, in my time as Police minister, was sitting down with the members from the Domestic Violence Unit in Alice Springs Police Station; I spent an hour with the team down there. Two of the women who were on that team of police officers in Alice Springs, took me through what, I have to say, is one of the most horrific photo albums that I have ever seen in my life. It really shocks me to the core that men can do this to women; it shocked me to the core. Within my own family circles this, to my knowledge, has never been an issue we have had to deal with, but to see page after page, photo after photo, of women’s faces and bodies being beaten to a pulp, black and blue, bruising which was horrendous, broken bones, it really was traumatising.
It was at that moment - the member for Arafura has been passionate in her advocacy for this in Cabinet over many years; and we had the usual debates in Cabinet that happened in the community, about if it would deter people from presenting to health clinics and hospitals, we had the same debate - when I saw those photos, that I said no, this cannot continue. We have to send very strong signals that this is everyone’s responsibility; people are being viciously and violently assaulted. I asked those two policewomen, who were taking me through that photo album, how, personally, they would deal with this. How do you go home to your families, having dealt with some of the issues you have been dealing with?
Even though it is very traumatic work they do, they were absolutely committed to it; absolutely committed to working to protect these women and better their lives and to see the perpetrators of these horrific assaults brought before the courts. They were very dedicated police officers. I commend all our officers who work in these domestic violence units, because they are very traumatic issues they deal with day after day after day. They do a very difficult and disturbing job.
A new Violent Crime Policy Section has also being established within Police. This section has responsibility for informing policy development, conducting quality assurance processes with regard to police response to incidents of violence, and implementing initiatives flowing from the recent review to further enhance effectiveness and efficiency in preventing and responding to incidents of violence. I assure all members, and the broader community, that all calls received by police, where violence is alleged to be occurring, are graded as call grade one, for immediate police response.
Police view domestic violence and calls for assistance as a high priority. With the passage of this legislation, when police receive a report the police officers will ensure reasonable steps are taken to investigate the report. Whilst more victims are having the confidence to report domestic violence, there are many cases that still go undetected, where the victim and, on occasion, witnesses do not report the crime. We have to lift the shroud of silence that sometimes surrounds these crimes. That is what they are - they are abhorrent crimes.
On occasion people who could make reports are frightened to do so possibly due to fear of retribution, or for whatever reason. The bill provides protection by ensuring that any person who, in good faith, makes a report to a police officer cannot be held criminally or civilly liable or in breach of any professional code of conduct.
This is a seminal debate. It is like 20 years ago when parliaments around Australia legislated for mandatory reporting of child abuse. We all accept that legislation as absolutely vital legislation in our society. I am very confident this legislation will stand the test of time and will be seen around Australia and, potentially, around the world, as groundbreaking legislation.
I table, for members interested in this debate, a copy of the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy 2008 by the police and signed off by the Commissioner. I say to the Commissioner, and put this on the public record, that I was the minister in 2004 and I know the Commissioner’s absolute commitment to improving the way police deal with domestic violence by establishing this Violent Crime Reduction Strategy. He knew that the culture had to change within the Northern Territory Police Force in terms of dealing with domestic violence; he knew their response had to be taken to a much higher level to deal with this as a very serious crime. It was the Police Commissioner’s total commitment to this that has seen, I believe, our police force leading Australia in terms of policing of domestic violence.
The graphs are very telling. I hope they end the nonsensical debates we have in this House regarding violent crime figures and the nature of violent crime in the Northern Territory. If the opposition does not understand numbers, they should be able to read a graph: when a graph is going upwards in a particular category that is the reason for these reports of violent crime increasing. You can see all these graphs have significant increases: in reported domestic violence, in police-initiated domestic violence orders, in police detected breaches of domestic violence orders, and alcohol-related domestic violence offences against a person.
All of these reported offences are significantly up from 2004 when this strategy was initiated. Those increases in violent crime statistics have nothing to do with increases in other categories of violent crime and everything to do with increases in reports of domestic violence. The figures are there in the graphs and if we are ever to have informed debate in this House about violent crime, the answers to those statistics are in these graphs. I commend everyone who is speaking in support of this bill because it is groundbreaking.
I conclude on the comments from the member for Katherine, an ex-police officer. I believe police will be able to cater for any increase in reports. There is a commitment from our government, that if there needs to be increased police resources, as a result of this legislation leading to a massive increase in the number of calls for support, then we will do everything we can to meet that need. But, to take the obverse point of view that it would put too much pressure on police, therefore you should not do it, is to deny those women, who are suffering domestic violence, the confidence they deserve in order to report it.
If you turn his view around obversely, that because it is going to mean more work for police therefore you should not do anything, I do not support that view at all. At the end of the day, human beings are very severely and significantly affected, assaulted and, for our Territory kids, who grow up in households where they have to witness firsthand domestic violence, I am sure we all want better for our children in the Northern Territory, as well.
I commend the minister for bringing forward this legislation. I commend my colleague, the member for Arafura, in particular, who has had the passion to bring this forward, time and again through Cabinet, to the point where we are today, introducing legislation that is groundbreaking. It is big, it is brave, it is bold, and it is the right thing to do.
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Policy): Madam Speaker, I support this bill and I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister for bringing this bill forward.
I believe it is a really important and touching subject for any politician, or anyone, to be talking about. I am so grateful that this government has committed an additional $15m over four years and that this government has the foresight to see that there needs to be continuous education strategies to make sure that, as the Chief Minister said, it is not in anyone’s culture to go and kill someone. It is not in anyone’s culture to go and harm someone or hurt someone - and I can tell you that it is not in Indigenous culture. No where in our culture have I heard old people say that it is culturally appropriate to bash your woman.
I am so glad to see this government committed to more crisis accommodation and increased domestic violence counselling services, because it is really about counselling victims. We are not just talking about the trauma of these victims - the bruises on their bodies or their bodies in morgues that you have to bury - but it is also important to campaign; to continuously educate the perpetrators and the younger generation of people who might perpetrate. The younger people see it happening in their homes everyday, so they think it is normal behaviour because they see their dad flogging their mum every night.
I put it to this House a couple of months ago when I was talking on domestic violence, that you get emotional when you talk about these things. The first time I saw it was when my dad smashed my mum’s nose and my mum had to return to Alice Springs Hospital, and I had to look after my five-year-old brother. We all want what is good for our children, and for our children to grow up not knowing, not feeling the pain of what they see happening to their mother. My mum still does not have that nose because of what happened. Medical services in those days were not as good as they are now, and she lives with that for the rest of her life.
We live with the pain we felt as children. It gets passed on from generation to generation. This bill will stop that from happening, along with education strategies and crisis accommodation strategies. We cannot sit in this House, as human beings, and say that something as good as this, which is setting a benchmark for women and children in the Northern Territory, has holes in it. That is what I am hearing a lot of people say, but these people are not victims.
I want to tell you a story from a victim’s point of view. As parents, we all leave our houses and we work hard in order to leave things for our children, so our children have better things than we had. The children who grow up in homes like the ones I am talking about carry the pain of their parents. The only time we find space to think, if you have children, is when you are breastfeeding. That is your time out to think: ‘What have I done? Do I really deserve this? Do I deserve to have a gun put to my head and asked if I have ever played Russian roulette? Do I deserve to be dragged in winter, stark naked, and have cold water poured over me when I am carrying a child? Do I deserve to lock my two children inside the house in order to save myself?’ That lives with you for the rest of your life - it does.
There is nothing you can do. If you live with someone for 35 years, 50 years, 20 years, or 17 years, the pain does not leave you. You can be divorced and separated for 10 years; the pain does not leave you. It plays on your mind that you had to lock your two children inside the house and run to save your life; and the kilometre that you ran felt like 100 km. It was lucky that the police cells were open that night, so that someone could lock themselves inside the cell without the police knowing they were in there, and asked the police to please go and pick up their children.
It is also the other victims in Aboriginal communities. You hide the bruises; you wear long sleeves so that no one notices. The reason you keep on doing that, the longer you stay inside that relationship, is because you want to make sure that your children have a father. That is the excuse that victims have. You might think it is easy for someone to report it to the nurse or to the police, but it is not. You always come up with excuses, or the relationship, or the perpetrator comes up with an excuse. Usually, it is: ‘I love you’ - all forgotten, until the next day. These are real tragedies that victims have to put up with.
I heard certain people speaking inside this House, in my view, speaking with a false tongue about saving and about making the law tougher for perpetrators. For the victims, when you look at those people, I always think back to a quote I have: ‘like a wolf in sheep’s clothing’, pretending they are the good things, but really behind what they say, is not what you see. There are tragedies, and it goes on, and you hand it down from generation to generation. I know that the children also suffer abuse, but unlike their mother, they picked it up very early and got out of the relationship very early, in a couple of years. Through the strength you build up as an individual you make yourself a survivor – you really do.
Like I said, the only spare time you have is when you have time to lay in bed and breastfeed your child. You hope that child will continue to stay awake and drink the milk, so there is not the opportunity for you to get another hiding. Even if you have friends who you want to talk to about these problems, it is really hard. You can have police officers and nurses who are your mates, but it is that attitude, it is not other people’s business, it is your business, you deal with it.
This legislation, and the fact that this government, over four years, is putting in $15m, is something that I commend to this House. We need to have a look at ourselves internally, in our hearts and minds and our souls, and say that we are doing this to save the lives of women and children. We do not want our children, in another 20 years’ time, to be standing inside this House talking about the same things that we are talking about. If I had the opportunity to talk about this issue again in 20 years’ time, the pain would still be there. The pain was there when it happened; the pain will still be there - you cannot get rid of it.
It does not matter if you report it and that person gets locked up in gaol, the pain is still there; you feel it every day. Talking about things like that just makes it harder; and I guess it makes you a hard person as well. It makes you into a survivor. If you can come through something like that, it does, it really makes you turn into a really hard person, because you put a shell around yourself, you are defensive and you do not want anyone else to touch you.
I commend this bill to the House.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, like colleagues on both sides of the House, I believe it is important that I contribute to this debate. I acknowledge the members for Macdonnell and Arnhem for sharing difficult and personal stories on this debate. It takes a lot of courage.
I am a child of a Warlpiri woman and a Mara/ Ngulikan man. My grandparents were members of the Stolen Generations. While I am aware of the massive dislocation in Aboriginal society which has occurred in the years since European settlement, I am not aware, and I do not believe, that domestic violence is a part of our Aboriginal culture. Domestic violence occurs within Aboriginal families just as it occurs within non-Aboriginal families. In both cases it is a crime. I am very proud to be part of the government which is determined to tackle this crime head-on.
To that end, the Northern Territory Police launched its Violent Crime Reduction Strategy, and it has also restructured its domestic units in Darwin and Alice Springs. It has also set up new Domestic and Personal Violence Protection Units in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, and Tennant Creek. One of the key factors that lies behind domestic violence is alcohol abuse. This is not an issue that traditional Aboriginal society had to deal with, but one this government is determined to address, along with our community.
There has been much debate in Alice Springs about the dry town legislation, which some people oppose on ideological grounds, and others say it is not working. I was interested to read a Letter to the Editor of the Centralian Advocate last week from Dr John Boffa, a spokesman for the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition. It was one of the longest letters I have ever seen published in a newspaper, around 1500 words long, which goes to show how important the issue is in the opinion of the editor of the Centralian Advocate. It starts off with Dr Boffa stating and I quote:
- It is now clear that alcohol consumption and alcohol-caused harm is declining in Alice Springs - so much so that it is not reasonable for anyone
to suggest that there has not been a major change.
However, it is reasonable to suggest that more must be done. It is also important that facts are not distorted.
These views are very disingenuous and are not based on fact.
This government is determined to tackle alcohol abuse and alcohol-related crime head-on. It is also a government that believes it is the responsibility of every member of our community to help break the cycle of domestic and family violence. I was very pleased to see the gesture made by both the Adelaide Crows and Aboriginal All Stars before their game at Marrara Oval recently.
A member: Hear, hear!
Mr HAMPTON: I join my colleague, the member for Arnhem, in congratulating the men from Santa Teresa or Ltyentye Apurte for travelling all the way up to show their support for this program. The players linked arms to show their support for the government’s program to tackle domestic violence. I also pay tribute to those great Territorian men on the field, who played for the All Stars, namely: Andrew McLeod, Cameron and Mathew Stokes, Cyril Rioli, Marlon, Daniel and Steven Motlop, Shaun Burgoyne, Aaron Davey, Raphael Clarke, Richard Tambling, Matt Campbell, Anthony Corrie, Austin Wonaeamirri and Nathan Djerrkura.
A member: Hear, hear!
Mr HAMPTON: Meanwhile, in Central Australia, the Department of Health and Families, in conjunction with Centacare and AFL NT, has produced this calendar which the member for Arnhem has shown us so proudly.
Five of the 12 teams featured live within my electorate of Stuart. I place on the record what the teams have to say about domestic violence. The Anmatjere Football Club says: ‘Men can make families feel safe’. The Lajamanu Football Club says: ‘All men have a responsibility to protect their families’. The Ti Tree Roosters say: ‘Winning in life is being strong for our women and children’. The Yuendumu Magpies say: ‘Give child abuse the boot’. The Yuendumu Football Club says: ‘Weekend warriors for football and life time warriors for our families’.
I congratulate all of those football teams in Central Australia for standing up and being counted in this campaign against domestic violence. Many people associate domestic violence with spousal abuse, but it can go much wider than that. It may occur between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, great-grandparents and great-grandchildren. It may occur between siblings, or between children and their parents-in-law or step-parents.
In fact, domestic relationships may involve very extended families including relatives according to Aboriginal tradition, or contemporary social practice. This is important because we are all aware that traditional family models are dwindling throughout our society, particularly in Indigenous communities. This is compounded in Aboriginal society by the massive reduction of male role models.
Last year, hundreds of Aboriginal men gathered at Ross River for the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress Male Health Summit. I congratulate John Liddle, the Male Health Manager at Congress for his work in organising the summit. At the end of the summit the delegates issued a statement, and I wish to read out the statement as follows:
- We the Aboriginal males from Central Australia and our visitor brothers from around Australia gathered at Inteyerrkwe in July 2008 to develop strategies
to ensure our future roles as grandfathers, fathers, uncles, nephews, brothers, grandsons and sons in caring for our children in a safe family environment
that will lead to a happier, longer life that reflects opportunities experienced by the wider community.
The statement goes on to say:
- We acknowledge and say sorry for the hurt, pain and suffering caused by Aboriginal males to our wives, to our children, to our mothers, to our grandmothers,
to our granddaughters, to our aunties, to our nieces and to our sisters. We also acknowledge that we need the love and support of our Aboriginal women to
help us move forward.
A very strong and passionate statement and, no doubt, as the member for Arnhem has said, we cannot do it alone; women cannot do it alone, it needs men to support them and to acknowledge the wrongs. I have no doubt that all of us in this Assembly want to see a safer Northern Territory community, and I am very pleased to support this bill.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, we all reject the scourge of domestic violence and the blight on our community. The question is: what to do about it? This government has taken the courageous step of introducing world-leading legislation that demands mandatory reporting of violent domestic assault. It is doing it because it is the right thing to do. The government knows it will be difficult to do, but knows it has to do something about the high levels of assault that occur.
Domestic violence, as we have heard, is totally unacceptable, and this government is showing strong leadership. The minister has shown incredible leadership and has acknowledged a whole team of people who have worked on this legislation and its amendment, who have also shown great leadership. Domestic violence is a community problem, and therefore needs a community response. As we have heard with great emotion, domestic violence is a hidden crime; hidden in relation to the perpetrator and a hidden crime in relation to the victim.
I can remember when the mandatory reporting of child abuse was brought into the Northern Territory parliament; it was passed, and there were similar debates and reservations in the community. It was a matter of such importance that from that day on I have counselled many teachers about the nature of mandatory reporting and how important it is in terms of changing community attitudes, of making people aware, of protecting people in our community and doing the right thing. I am proud to stand up and say that this government is introducing the same legislation towards domestic violence and mandatory reporting. It is a crime and we have to end the silence; we have to send the message, and this legislation sends the message. It not only protects the victims but it also protects the people who report.
This legislation also supports the NT Police. The NT Police have been very proactive in targeting domestic violence, in targeting repeat offenders, and in supporting repeat victims via the Domestic and Personal Violence Protection Units. I know personally the officer-in-charge of this unit in Tennant Creek, and I have witnessed that officer’s passion in this field. I have celebrated the community’s desire to rid the Northern Territory of this crime and to support the police in whatever way we can. As the Chief Minister said, it is not an issue of worrying about numbers and logistics; it is making it mandatory, getting it out there and raising awareness.
I was very proud to hear this government’s strategy of communicating, not only the changes to this important legislation, but to communicate to our community that domestic violence is not acceptable, that the government has enacted legislation to deal with this unacceptable situation, and the very important part of making people aware of what domestic violence really is. We are talking about changing inappropriate behaviour in our community. I celebrate the day when our children make the very clear decision, through new awareness of domestic violence, that it is a totally unacceptable situation in our society.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill. I have listened for some hours to passionate debate, with contributions from people with many different perspectives from law enforcement, justice, schoolteachers, and personal anecdotes - some very personal anecdotes. When I was advised last year of this bill coming up, I had some reservations about it. It was probably hinting on the fear factor that the member for Nelson talked about: what the implications would be for people on communities – especially on remote communities - regarding payback. I wondered if there was some other mechanism by which we could deal with it.
However, I have arrived at a position today that I know that this bill is the right way to go; it is the right thing to do. It has to be zero tolerance. As the member for Barkly said, if we have mandatory reporting for children, then we need to extend that to women and children who are at serious risk and on the receiving end of some horrendous crimes which we read about and hear about so frequently.
The day before this bill was introduced to the House, I attended a White Ribbon Day breakfast marking the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I know several members also attended, and I remember seeing the member for Katherine there. This is an issue that is not just a concern of women, but also men, everyone – as it should be. It was hosted by Darwin’s Zonta Club. The guest speaker was Major General David Chalmers, from the Australian Army, who headed up the federal government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response, or the intervention.
There are many things about the intervention which I do not like, not the least of which was the way it was launched. However, among the many issues highlighted through the intervention, apart from poor health, education and housing conditions, was the raft of appalling social issues. Major General Chalmers, in his speech at this breakfast, highlighted the awful but accepted culture of violence against women and children. I was shocked and disturbed to hear him say in his speech that Indigenous women are 45 times more likely to be the victims of assault than non-Indigenous women. Actually, there was a complete element of disbelief; I thought I must have misheard or there was a typo in his speech. How could it possibly be that Indigenous women are 45 times more likely to be the victims of assault than non-Indigenous women?
Later that day, I prepared my weekly column for Nhulunbuy’s local newspaper, the Arafura Times, and e-mailed it through to the Editor, Rod Neil. In my column, I mentioned that I had attended this breakfast, and I wrote about the statistics and how they show that, in Australia, one in 20 women are victims of random violence, and more than a third of woman have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual assault from the age of 15. I also included the statistic I heard that morning from Major General Chalmers, that Indigenous women are 45 times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be victims of domestic violence. I went on to say that as a community we could no longer tolerate this, and that this is why the Northern Territory government was introducing a bill which would see mandatory reporting of domestic and family violence.
It obviously ate away at me during the day, because later in the day I checked the e-mail sent that morning, and I sent a revised draft of my column asking the editor to remove the reference to Indigenous women being 45 times more likely to be assaulted than non-Indigenous women. I guess I did that because I was afraid that it would, on one hand, be a source of great shame and that some of my Yolngu constituents would feel indignant, and maybe even challenge that figure, about this very sensitive issue; but also that it would really outrage people who would demand to know what the government was doing to address domestic and family violence, and that we could actually have these sort of statistics. I guess, also, I did not want to give my non-Indigenous constituents some statistics to hide behind and be in denial that domestic and family violence is only an Indigenous issue, because we all know for a fact that it is not, and I know that from the various roles I have had in Nhulunbuy.
Having spent most of my adult life in the Territory, I have personally, like every other person here, seen and heard of some cases of abuse which, under this legislation, I would be obliged to notify under mandatory reporting. In my very early schoolteaching years, I recall an incident with one of my students, which was a bit of a wake-up call for me as a new high schoolteacher. He was a nice enough kid; a bit of a loner, a little scruffy, disinclined at school and he rarely completed all his work, probably because for the most part it was beyond him. With hindsight, my teacher training back in the 1980s was quite deficient in teaching me the stuff that I really needed to know about teaching young kids.
I knew a lot about literature and deconstructing text, and various methods for teaching different periods of history; how to operate different kinds of equipment; how to assess a classroom when I walked in at the start of the day – did I need to open a window for fresh air or put a heater on. But no one really prepared me for what I needed to know to be able to deal with a whole range of social issues that impact on kids’ lives.
I had this kid in my class one particular day, and I can still picture him; I cannot remember his surname, but I remember his first name. He and I had a bit of a flare-up. I cannot remember what it was over, but he threw every four letter word under the sun at me; I did not feel physically threatened, but he certainly let fly with the language. He tossed over a couple of chairs and stormed out of the classroom. I was outraged and I was really indignant because I was in charge of that class and these kids had no right to speak to me like that, because I was the teacher. I followed the school’s disciplinary process and insisted that this boy be suspended.
I remember talking soon after the incident with the Assistant Principal, who basically counselled me to reconsider my stance, and I did not hesitate as soon as I learnt more about this young boy’s background. He would have been about 14 or 15. He had an alcoholic father, a history of domestic violence, and this young person would undoubtedly be on the receiving end of a severe flogging if he was suspended from school. While this boy was protected to a degree by the school because they had knowledge of his home situation and by mandatory reporting with regards to children, it always stuck in my head that tacit acceptance of things we know are not right is simply not to be endured.
I agree with the point made by my colleague, the member for Arafura, that when a woman is being abused, there is probably fair ground to think that there might be a child being abused as well. Now, with hindsight about that particular young boy, I wonder if it might have been the same situation for his mother.
I share another quick story. About a year ago I attended a training session at Rio Tinto Alcan. It was a burns awareness session and it was about first aid treatment for burns. The work environment at the refinery is one where there are many chemicals and so there is a risk of chemical and thermal burns. The presenter was a clinical nurse specialist from the Royal Darwin Hospital’s burns unit. It was an extremely informative, graphic and, at times, a shocking presentation detailing different injuries resulting from burns and how each of those different burns needs to be treated. I was in a room mainly with men and all of us cringed, covered our eyes at times, and shook our heads on hearing how some of these injuries had come about. Many of these were obviously domestic violence cases and quite plainly, there was a sub-agenda to the presentation to show, educate and even shock us into recognising the reality of domestic violence.
One of the most awful and dreadful photos - not unlike what the Chief Minister talked about when he was in Alice Springs at the police station looking through an album of photos - related to a woman who had presented at the Royal Darwin Hospital with terrible scalding burns. She had an abusive partner who, in a domestic dispute, poured a kettle full of boiling water over her head. This was after she had been beaten, as well. When she fled to the shower for cold water, he followed her with another kettle full of boiling water which he poured over her. He turned off the cold water tap in the shower and turned on the hot water tap.
I cannot remember how that woman made it to Accident and Emergency at the Royal Darwin Hospital and into the burns unit. Her head had to be shaved and revealed a mass of old scars. Further investigations and X-rays revealed fractures and broken bones which had healed; all hidden reminders of cumulative beatings and abuse sustained over a period of time.
Stories like this, and stories I have heard from the members for Arnhem, Macdonnell and Arafura, which came to the fore in the ABC interview on 15 May 2006 with Dr Nanette Rogers, which the member for Araluen reminded us of.
If I can just backtrack for a moment to hospitals and the excellent care that doctors and nurses provide. There is another story which I would like to share. About a year ago a friend of mine had a really nasty fall from her bicycle; she was not wearing her helmet. She hit the pavement and sustained terrible injuries to her face – lots of cuts and lost a couple of teeth. Her injuries were so bad she was medivaced to the Royal Darwin Hospital where she was stitched up, and came home a few days later.
When I saw her she looked quite shocking. Her face was really swollen and she had something like 80 stitches in her face. When I was commiserating with her she said to me how fortunate she was - I cannot remember the name of the doctor who sutured her face - but she said the doctors at Royal Darwin Hospital are presented with so many cases of women who are victims of domestic violence, who have had glasses smashed in their face, that they have become very adept at providing this sort of service. It is a sad indictment that we have these skilled doctors in our hospitals because they have had so much practice at fixing up broken bodies and smashed faces.
Such awful and serious cases as this poor woman who was doused with boiling water, present at hospitals - if they are fortunate enough to get to hospital - are reported, and the perpetrators are prosecuted. I will talk in a moment about the Corrections system and what we need to do to break that cycle of violence amongst perpetrators. But some acts of domestic violence are far more subtle than that, where the scars are not so obvious and are much more psychological than physical.
Apart from the bill incorporating and recognising the range of physical and menacing abuse, one of the key aspects this bill introduces, and I quote from the minister’s second reading speech:
- The inclusion of economic abuse and intimidation in the definition of domestic violence recognised that socially isolating the victim from their normal channels
of support, and economically depriving them is abusive behaviour by shaming and undermining the victim’s capacity to take independent action.
I have seen firsthand in my town this kind of abuse amongst Indigenous but, especially, non-Indigenous women. I welcome that the bill will offer that protection and recourse. In a town like Nhulunbuy, which is surprising to some people, given that there are so many people who make such good money, yet, as someone has already said, there are no boundaries about which class, whether you are Indigenous or non-Indigenous, or how much money you make. Domestic violence is an insidious thing which goes right across all those boundaries. In Nhulunbuy we are isolated for nearly six months of the year when rivers rise - a number of other small and remote communities are like that as well – and for a woman, or a woman and children, there is no means of escape.
There is nowhere to go if an abusive partner holds the keys to the car and holds access to the bank account. I know women who have been in this situation. The only place they can go to is a friend’s place or to the crisis accommodation centre which, most nights of the week, is full of women and children escaping domestic violence.
This raises the point about having adequate resources to support what will follow from the bill being passed by this Assembly. I welcome the news from the Minister for Children and Families that $15m has been earmarked for resources. Resources like crisis accommodation and safe houses, counselling services and, of course, a communication campaign that delivers and hammers home the important messages to people.
I acknowledge that the Northern Territory government is opening 17 new safe houses around the Territory. The first of these was opened very recently by the member for Arnhem.
If we are trying to support women and children escaping violence and abuse, they need somewhere to go. The flip side of that is - this is the view of a friend of mine who has worked in the area of crisis accommodation for a number of years - why should it be the victim, often with her children, who has to leave their community? Why can it not be the perpetrator?
This brings us to the next issue, also about resourcing. When perpetrators are successfully prosecuted they will invariably serve a prison sentence, but we need to have in place workable and outcome-driven rehabilitation programs for all domestic violence offenders. Currently, we have a huge number of repeat offenders – a terrible cycle of violence – a revolving door in Corrections facilities, which too often ends only when some longsuffering victim eventually receives injuries which are fatal, and then the perpetrator simply moves on to the next victim.
I take heart from the announcements last week about a new direction for Corrections and the commitment to provide appropriate training and education programs which will aim to provide rehabilitation for offenders and recidivist offenders in the area of domestic and family violence.
We also need to address alcohol abuse, and a number of members have also talked about this. The vast majority of the domestic and family violence we see and hear about is directly linked to alcohol. I do not know what happens in other jurisdictions, but the fact that we have a minister responsible for Alcohol Policy is a sad indictment of just how bad things are. We cannot possibly hope to tackle domestic and family violence without also addressing alcohol abuse and all of the antisocial problems that go with it.
We have to address bringing about attitudinal change at the community and individual level; domestic violence is not normal behaviour and it is not accepted behaviour.
I applaud the wearing of white ribbons to indicate support for victims of domestic violence and I recognise the importance of awareness-raising campaigns and the role they play in bringing about attitudinal change. But there has to be more than this to turn this dreadful problem around.
I believe this bill will make people responsible, and the onus will be on them to report domestic and family violence.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank all members of the Assembly for their contribution to the debate on this amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Act.
I thank the opposition for its support, it has raised issues with its qualified support and I will respond to those issues. I understand that it intends to take this debate into committee. No? Sorry, I was advised we were going to committee, so I was going to go into more detail in committee.
A member interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay. I will go into more detail now. That is fine.
This legislation should never be seen in isolation of the significant work this government has embarked upon to tackle domestic and family violence in our community. We have heard speaker upon speaker in today’s debate talk about the horrendous numbers of incidents of domestic and family violence across the Territory community; and we know that Indigenous Territorians are overrepresented in violence in the family home.
That is why we have heard such impassioned discussion and debate here today, particularly from members of the Chamber who come from Indigenous families, who have witnessed firsthand the domestic and family violence that this legislation aims to focus on and, aims to send a clarion call to the broader community, that it is everyone’s responsibility to report domestic violence.
I know there is an issue about where the government has decided to frame mandatory reporting around serious harm, and I will address that in my response. Critical to the government’s action is the $15m commitment to tackle - across the spectrum of people who work within the area, whether it be the victims or the perpetrators – at a grassroots level, to try to prevent violence of this nature in the first instance. However, if violence of this nature occurs, then put additional support where it counts the most.
$6m will be provided for additional crisis accommodation services; $3m for a communication and education awareness campaign which will roll-out across the Territory, focusing the campaign in many Indigenous languages, if not all of them - there are probably about 15 core languages that will be identified, but that work will be undertaken by the Minister for Families and Children - there is $3.5m for expanding counselling services; and a $2.5m commitment for extra beds in crisis accommodation and upgrades to crisis accommodation shelters.
The government has never pretended this legislation, in itself, is the answer to combating the insidious level of violence in our community in the context of domestic and family settings which, as we have heard in debate, is significantly and primarily against women with children victims caught up in domestic and family violence. That is not to say there are not male victims; of course, there are and this legislation is not gender-specific. However, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the victims are women, and women in the most vulnerable of circumstances, often in regional and remote areas, where it is difficult to get the extensive support and services they need.
Fundamentally, I am the Attorney-General carrying this bill through passage, but this is not my work. I am not going to stand and claim it as my work. I believe this is a body of work of strong women of the Territory, strong women who have spoken up consistently and repeatedly and said: more has to be done to stop the violence being perpetrated against the women of the Territory. Those women are both Indigenous and non-Indigenous women. Those women are leaders in our community: they are lawyers, they are workers in the field of domestic violence, they are politicians in this Chamber, and they are the victims who, through strength, wanted to be heard.
I am very proud to have witnessed the debate that has occurred in my government, and I recall the large amount of work the former Attorney-General and member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, undertook to bring forward contemporary legislation tackling domestic and family violence. This is an amendment to that contemporary legislation and should be seen in the context of contemporary legislation which provides offences to the broad range of harms that are domestic and family violence. I know that during the debates and discussions at the time, the then Attorney-General was challenged by the voices of women; non-Indigenous and Indigenous, leaders in our community, but also the quiet, gentle victims, and they challenged him to think about whether we could have mandatory reporting of domestic violence.
He took up the challenge, and he tasked the Department of Justice to undertake a further discussion on this issue, which has led to this legislation in the House. Taking up the challenge, when the member for Nhulunbuy left the role of Attorney-General, was the member for Arafura. She was an impassioned champion of the pursuit by government to adopt a policy that would introduce mandatory reporting. She was joined and supported, I am proud to say, by the new Chief Minister who, at the most senior level of the government, threw his support behind a cause which had primarily, before the intervention of the former member for Nhulunbuy, been just a women’s issue, just pursued by women, but we started to see the men in government step up.
Another man I want to thank is Charlie King, who has doggedly, over the years, pursued and continues to pour so much time and effort into this issue and never let it go. He is to be commended for his pursuit, in every undertaking, of protection for women and children. He is an absolute champion of mandatory reporting and has been a huge supporter.
The journey to today has not just been the significant effort of those leaders; the quiet women who were victims, and the men who joined to support the women in their pursuit of this, those women sit on both sides of this Chamber, it has also been an enormous effort and a challenge to people working in the Department of Justice to try to construct something that is world-first. We know Tasmania made an attempt to look at the professionals who doubt in the sector, in terms of mandatory reporting, and they passed legislation, but it has never been enacted; it has never been implemented.
In the United States, there are five jurisdictions which have legislation for mandatory reporting in this area, but it only deals with professionals reporting. No one has ever attempted to tackle the universal requirement of mandatory reporting that this parliament will be passing today. It was incredibly difficult work for the Department of Justice to undertake, but they undertook it diligently. The Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services and the Department of Health and Families also have staff who have committed many hours working on this trying to find a way to make this legislation workable. We did not want it to be lip service, as the member for Katherine alleged. We did not want it to be window dressing, simply a political stunt. We want this to work. We want it to change the attitude in our community towards accepting that the violence being perpetrated, primarily on women, is someone else’s issue; we do not have to report it.
We genuinely, at the heart of this, want to change that. We went through a very lengthy process. We went through many versions, looked at much advice, and detailed work across Police, Fire and Emergency Services into the workability aspects, because it comes down to the police in terms of the operational aspects; Justice because of the cost structures of legislation and the court systems and how it would all work; and Health and Families, which is at the coalface of seeing the victims. We knew that nurses in remote clinics would be put in difficult circumstances because of this mandatory reporting requirement.
During the consultation phases we drew out all the concerns, we heard listed by the member for Katherine and the concerns about the workability of it. Would it indeed prevent victims from seeking help? Because that was always an argument led very strongly in the debate about the introduction of mandatory reporting.
My colleagues in the government worked through every argument put forward and every barrier presented, to doggedly pursue the introduction of this legislation under the former Attorney-General, the member for Johnston. He was a thorough man and he went thoroughly over what we were proposing to construct, so that we reached a point of workability and so that we are introducing something that we can say we believe is designed to bring forward a change of attitude in our community, and where we are clearly saying: if you see serious harm being perpetrated against a woman, then you are required, when this law passes and is enacted, to report it or you are in breach of the law of the Territory. It carries a maximum fine of $22 000. It does not carry imprisonment, but it does carry that maximum fine of $22000.
In hearing all the debates and discussion, I felt that I had to identify the path that brought us here, and there are many other aspects of that path. The men’s groups which have been forming across the Territory, under the funding and support of the department of Families and under the leadership of Charlie King, who have been dealing with this issue of violence perpetrated against woman across the Territory. We know that violence is significantly perpetrated against Indigenous women and the Minister for Children and Families recognises that to truly turn the tide of that violence there must be a community response. It cannot just be government – it has to be a community response. We have had the responsibility to provide protections in the law, which are the reforms undertaken for the Domestic and Family Violence Act; then a further clarion call to say: you must report.
We will live in a regime of: you must report, regardless of who you are; it is universal. You do not have to be a health worker professional or a teacher. Whatever you do, whoever you are in the Territory, you must report. It is a bold step being taken in the Territory, as the Chief Minister has outlined, but because violence is so prevalent in our community, we must take this step. None of us can say, absolutely, hand-on-heart, that we know how effective it will be, where it will work, and that we know how it will work.
Have we have gone down into all the detail and looked at the consequences of all the different aspects of it? Yes, we have, and we have sought the best possible advice on all of it. But we recognise that domestic violence is a community problem and it needs a community response. With this legislation, we are saying that we believe that together we can make a difference - we must make a difference.
You have heard members in this Chamber talk about the effect, not just on the victims, the women, but on those silent victims, the children, and the lifelong consequences that domestic violence has on women and children.
Take this amendment in the context of the Domestic and Family Violence Act. It cannot be taken out of that context because it is embodied, when we pass it, in that act, which was developed with the primary objective of better protecting the women and children in our community. We know half of the assaults committed in the Territory are domestic violence related. We have all lived far too long with this. We need to do whatever it takes to tackle the problem. We will continue to try new initiatives, whatever it takes, to tackle the problem. The mandatory reporting of serious harm is significant, but it is not the only thing we are doing and if it were the only thing, it would not be enough.
We should never underestimate the impact of a $15m resource investment into the key areas of counselling, crisis support, and accommodation; seeing the safe houses roll-out across the communities and the cooling-off places for the men. That will have such an enormous impact at the community level. Knowing that men are now part of the solution will have an enormous impact; it can never just be a women’s argument. We will never win the argument if it is just a women’s argument. It has to be the men as well. We have to bring the men out of the shame and the blame, into nurturing and putting down the fight with the women, and protecting their women and their children.
I am so proud of the football men of Central Australia for the calendar they have made, the statements they are saying, and for the pacts they are making amongst each other about how they believe in pursing the protection of their women and their children; I am very proud of those men. I am proud of the footballers at the national level - the Indigenous All Stars and the Crows - for standing out there and making a bold statement to start the public awareness and education campaign that will say - no more. A simple message. No more. It is about protecting our women and children.
This is an important step towards that genuine change in community attitudes and behaviour regarding domestic and family violence. We hope that this reform will tip the balance and make us all legally, as well as morally, responsibly to stop the violence towards women and children. It is intended to provide further protection to those people who experience abuse and violence within their relationships and within their families.
Mandatory reporting is not about peering over your neighbour’s fence or dobbing to the police. It is about refusing to ignore serious violence to those who are most vulnerable. I believe this is a courageous step, and I am proud that the Territory is the first place in the world to take this step.
Mandatory reporting is sending a message to the community, to our friends, to our neighbours, to our families, that abuse should no longer be ignored and that we, the community, will no longer remain silent. Open those closed doors, open those closed mouths, and contact the police. I know that is hard. I know people will be frightened. However, we have constructed the legislation to provide the supports and the delays necessary to provide safety when we think safety will be put at risk by the simple matter of reporting. We took on board, from community consultation, the real fear of someone being at risk if an immediate report is required.
Therefore, we included in the legislation the ability to delay that report on the basis of safety and safety plans being put in place. We recognise the very real circumstances. This is not just an issue in remote communities; it is also an issue that presents itself in the suburbs of our city and in our towns.
This bill creates a mandatory reporting law for abuse that occurs within a domestic relationship and causes serious physical harm, or where a person’s life or safety is under serious or imminent threat because of domestic violence. The reporting requirement is specifically defined in this way to ensure that the police, domestic violence counsellors, and women’s shelter workers are able to become involved at the most appropriate stage in any domestic abuse situation. This follows extensive consultation with the community and the domestic abuse counsellors and other professionals who work in the field. We decided that extending mandatory reporting to all forms of abuse, such as emotional or financial intimidation, could potentially cut off those significant avenues of assistance for women who want to leave a relationship.
We looked at the extent and also at the workability of that and of encouraging the use of mandatory reporting, rather than confusion, in the sector. There is a stark difference of opinion in this Chamber today about that. We looked at all levels of harm. It is still an offence to perpetrate harm – absolutely - it is there in the Domestic and Family Violence Act; it is an offence. I challenge anyone to make that call. We chose serious harm for mandatory reporting based on what we know is the best advice from people who work in the field: the police, the domestic violence professionals, and the shelters.
It is the government’s intention that this legislation is clear and simple, to bring to the attention of the police any women and children who are at serious risk from domestic violence - and men. Men are not excluded from this, however, we know that the victims are mostly women and their children. It is the government’s intention to ensure the safety of women and children from family members or others with who they are in a domestic relationship, from subjecting them to a degree of violence that is absolutely unacceptable, and is criminal.
This is world-first legislation, and we all acknowledge that domestic violence is an entrenched community problem; we need the entire community to be involved to tackle it. The legislation overrides any other professional obligation or duty of confidentiality, which reflects the absolute seriousness with which the government considers the issue. The government believes that no one should be able to opt out of reporting serious domestic violence simply because of their professional background. We recognise that this challenges the lawyers and the medical professions, and there has been consultation with these professions throughout the process. We put the seriousness of tackling domestic violence and serious harm perpetrated against women and sadly, children, before professional privilege. That is how seriously we are taking this matter.
I know there are concerns in this Chamber in terms of the definition of ‘harm’, but the requirement for mandatory reporting does not hinge on defining harm. The bill creates an offence if any person fails to report if they have a reasonable belief that a person has caused serious physical harm to another person within a domestic relationship, or that a person’s life or safety is under serious or imminent threat because of domestic violence. The bill requires a police officer to investigate any report made. People are not precluded from reporting a belief that any domestic violence is occurring, or any harm of any description is occurring.
When a report is made to police, the Domestic Violence Protection Unit will be tasked to investigate, the police will investigate the allegation that domestic violence is occurring. The definition of ‘harm’ comes into play in determining whether a person has committed an offence for failing to report. It is then up to a court, during a prosecution for the offence of failing to report, to decide whether a person was obliged to report in the circumstances; that is whether, in the circumstances, the person would have formed a reasonable belief that a person was seriously harmed due to domestic violence, or a person’s life or safety was threatened. The offence of failing to report applies to domestic violence which inflicts serious physical harm upon a person, this is physical harm and includes the cumulative effect of more than one harm that endangers or is likely to endanger a person’s life, or that is or is likely to be significant and long-standing.
This high level of violence requires police attention and it is the government’s intention that the community assist in bringing violence of this nature to the attention of police. It is entirely consistent with the role of police to respond where serious physical harm is involved, or where the life or safety of another person is under serious or imminent threat. We believe it is not feasible to create an offence for failing to report abuse that is not clear and not visible. We do not believe it is the role of police to deal with matters not within their skill sets: mental health, for example. Police are not, in circumstances where there is emotional and psychological violence damaging the individual - which is a crime and will remain a crime - the most appropriate professionals to provide immediate assistance to those crimes. Yes, they are crimes, and charges should be laid and they should go through the courts and be prosecuted. But the police are not the ones to deal with that, we have other professionals who are equipped to deal with that.
We know there is good work done on a daily basis by the many organisations throughout the Territory that assist people who experience domestic and family violence. These organisations provide a variety of supports to assist people to seek their own way through the violence they are experiencing. We believe these broader professionals are better placed, through the use of their wider skills base, to assist those victims to build the self-esteem required to work out their solutions and get out of the situation in those other areas of harm.
Mandatory reporting did not just suddenly arise on the government’s agenda. It has been developed over some time. In July 2007, an informal consultation occurred with stakeholders on whether the government should introduce the mandatory reporting obligation of domestic violence on health professionals. A discussion paper, Mandatory Reporting of Domestic Violence by Health Professionals, was subsequently prepared by the former Department of Health and Community Services in conjunction with the Department of Justice and released on 4 January 2008. On 8 July 2008, the government made …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: … a significant step: a public announcement of its intention to legislate the mandatory reporting of domestic violence by all adults. I thank the Chief Minister and the then Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Arafura, for that bold step.
Dealing with domestic violence is not a new concept for our health professionals. The Department of Health and Families has a policy for dealing with domestic and family violence which provides that: where a health professional suspects domestic and family violence has occurred, the victim is encouraged to report to the police. Where the health professional believes the client’s life, health or safety is under serious or imminent threat they must report to police, regardless of client consent. Health professionals are required to report a child, or any person under the age of 18 years, who has been maltreated or is at risk of maltreatment, this includes psychological and/or physical impairment as a result of exposure to domestic and family violence.
The government’s intention with this legislation is simple and clear: to bring to the attention of police, any woman and children who are at serious risk because of domestic violence. The Department of Health and Families, through Northern Territory Family and Children’s Services, is working on the critical communication, education and awareness strategy. It will tackle those difficult issues around community acceptance of domestic violence and will seek to change attitudes to improve and, hopefully, get rid of the stigma attached to domestic violence and replace it with one of community responsibility. It is everyone’s business. It is our intention with this policy to make domestic violence everyone’s business, as we endeavour to do with violence, harm or threats against children.
The government will also strengthen crisis accommodation and counselling services across the Territory, so incidents of serious domestic violence can be brought to police attention through these services and they are better equipped to deal with what we hope will be a response through community awareness to report domestic violence. We will continue to listen carefully to the sector: to police, to domestic violence workers, health professionals, legal professionals, and the court systems. We will not stop today with this reform.
I have just taken up the portfolio of Justice and moved into the role of Attorney-General, and I know there are other issues to be tackled in terms of the broader Domestic and Family Violence Act; issues such as whether threatening behaviour is a breach of a domestic violence order and issues of double jeopardy. I make a commitment to the Chamber, as the new Attorney-General, that I will pursue these issues. I will take options to my Cabinet colleagues and report to this Assembly. It will not take years. It will be work done as soon as is practicable. At the first meeting, with the CEO of Justice, I raised these issues and asked for options to come forward.
The courts infrastructure needs improving; I am aware of that. The Department of Justice is looking at and pursuing how we can improve the courts, because they are an important component of this.
The member for Goyder raised a concern that the Chief Minister, the minister for Police, had not responded to a letter from her dated 7 January. I have a copy of that response and it is dated 13 February. I will table it, but I was informed that it had been sent prior to today. I wanted to respond to that.
The member for Nelson raised issues about the bush and how it will work for remote communities and health professionals, which is why we included those defences of reasonable excuses in making immediate reports; picking up on community consultations to provide the opportunity to delay mandatory reporting to put in place the safety of the victim and, also, the safety of professionals involved. We are aware of the potential impact this will have out in the bush. The Tasmanian Family Violence Act of 2004 has a requirement for reporting of family violence, but it is only around prescribed persons who are professionals and it has not been enacted.
I reiterate that today’s debate has been a very significant step for this Assembly, for the members of this parliament but, most of all, a significant step for the women and children of the Territory. I know we are not all of one mind in the detail of this amendment, but I believe we are all of one mind in the intent to put better protections in place for the women and children who are primarily the victims of domestic and family violence. I recognise that men can be victims as well.
This is not the only answer. The government backs up this significant, world-first policy shift with resources into the sector - not insignificant resources for the amount of resources available to the Territory – of $15m going into the critical areas of crisis and support services, accommodation, public awareness and education campaigns. I have no doubt that the Minister for Children and Families, who has carriage and responsibility for the operational approaches - counselling, support services, crisis accommodation, public awareness and education campaigns - is capable of taking up the challenge ahead to change the attitude of the community and the Territory towards violence. I am pleased she wants to work with the men of the Territory to do that.
I am proud of the men I have seen come forward to champion this, and I am humbled by the strong, capable women who champion this. We all know victims; some are very close to us, and some we have read about. My mother has pursued this issue since the 1970s, when it was unpopular to even mention it. I witnessed debates in this Chamber, of men in this Chamber howling her down on this issue. I know she has been sitting there listening to this debate all day long. I know victims - Indigenous women - who fled their communities and found shelter in my family home; I witnessed it as a child.
I am humbled to be the Attorney-General to have passage of this through parliament. The challenge lies ahead for every one to report domestic and family violence.
I commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report on Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2008
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Report on Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2008
Continued from 27 November 2008.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Remuneration Tribunal completed its 2008 Report and Determination on the Entitlements of Members of the Assembly, including ministers and office holders. The Determination was received by government on 28 October 2008.
This is a conservative and sensible approach in regard to members’ entitlements. The tribunal has increased the base or urban electorate allowances by 7%, which takes into account the CPI for the period June 2007 to June 2008. It also takes into account the average increase in the number of constituents in electorates. The additional amount applying to rural electorates has been increased by 4.2% to reflect the CPI increase.
The additional salary of officers has been increased by 4%, and is based on the percentage increase received by NT public servants between October 2007 and October 2008. Travelling allowances have been increased in accordance and in line with the Australian government Tax Office determinations.
The tribunal notes that, since the last RTD, there have been significant changes to the boundaries of the rural electorates. The tribunal foreshadows that before next year’s RTD, it will comprehensively review the electorate allowance for all seats, particularly the rural seats.
This is a conservative, steady-as-she-goes, commonsense determination, acknowledging the increased costs that members have in serving their constituents.
I thank the tribunal for their work and diligence in ensuring that we have the capacity, as MLAs, to represent and serve our constituents. I look forward to future reports from the tribunal.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I also acknowledge the hard work of the tribunal and thank them for their diligence in tending to these matters and providing the opportunity for members to respond.
I concur fully with the comments made by the Chief Minister, and note the report.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Northern Territory Public Service Reform and Revitalisation
Mr KNIGHT (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, the Henderson government supports our hard-working public servants. We are committed to ensuring the NTPS remains contemporary and equipped to continue its tasks of advising government and providing services to Territorians. This afternoon, I will detail the current state of the Northern Territory Public Service, the government’s expectations of the public sector, and the challenges it faces.
Since self-government in 1978, the Northern Territory Public Service has been characterised by its can-do attitude. The energy, commitment, flair and leadership the NTPS has brought to the task of nurturing the development of the Northern Territory should be acknowledged and applauded. Our current public service, in many ways, faces a more demanding and complex environment than in 1978.
Our expectation is that public servants will help improve the economic and social environment of our community. As a community, we expect the provision of frank, fearless and professional advice to government, the efficient implementation of government decisions, and the delivery of high-quality services. We also have expectations of how they behave and how they represent the Northern Territory, as its employees. They must act with propriety, probity, honesty, honour and respect. The Northern Territory has been very fortunate in that there is virtually no evidence of Northern Territory public servants acting with a lack of probity, honesty and good intent.
As ministers and active members of the community, we see evidence every day of the commitment of public servants. We should be very proud that we have not experienced the corruption and maladministration other jurisdictions have endured in their public sectors.
Despite those positive attitudes which characterise our public service, some in our community unfairly criticise, in my view, public servants as a group. Of course, they are not perfect. Service delivery can always be improved, and they are not above criticism. They are absolutely accountable and responsible to the community. However, public servants do not deserve unfair criticism and they do not deserve attacks from the opposition. We need to remember that when a public servant is criticised they are largely unable to defend themselves. Their only real defence is to continue to behave professionally and continue to produce good advice and services.
Processes are in place to deal with performance issues, perceived or otherwise, whether through agency policy, investigations by the Ombudsman, or reporting by the Auditor-General. It is disappointing that the CLP continue to denigrate senior public servants. We do not acknowledge enough the hard work and contribution public servants make. Too often we hear the term ‘fat cats’ used to describe the senior executive group of public servants; a stereotypical criticism of public servants collectively, that they do not work hard and are paid too much. Let me set the record straight. The government has a wage policy that provides for public servants to be paid amongst the best in the country. It is important that we attract and retain the best talent to senior positions in the NTPS. I believe that executives are fairly paid, highly committed, and the vast majority perform to our expectations.
The government wants a public service which has the courage to act. Given the social and economic issues we need to address, having a public sector which does not have the courage to act is not an option. We need a public service which has the courage to question the status quo, look for innovative solutions to complex social issues, engage with people in our society, provide frank and fearless advice, and persist when the going gets tough under increasing demands for more and better services, when there are limited resources to do the job. The public sector must be committed to deliver. Any public servant who does not understand that it is all about service delivery, no matter where they sit in the agency structure, is unlikely to have a long and satisfying career in the service.
Chief executives in the Northern Territory, as in all jurisdictions, have performance agreements with their ministers which cover service delivery. They and their staff must provide advice that is professionally developed and presented, taking into account available evidence and research, an assessment of government’s policy objectives, the cost implications, and the best means of implementation. Public servants also have to be committed to the delivery of quality services directly to the public; we expect there to be a commitment to working towards the government’s policy outcomes and delivering services accordingly. We also expect public servants to connect with the community.
In 2001, when Labor won government for the first time since self-government in 1978, one of the first messages given to the public service was the notion of community engagement as a way of conducting the business of government. Our aim was to embed the concept of community engagement so it became the normal way the government and its agencies do business. Any discussion on the public sector connecting with the community must include the particular issue of how we connect with Indigenous Territorians.
Indigenous people comprise almost 30% of our population, but just over 8% of our public servants are Indigenous. Correcting this imbalance will take time and focused effort, but we will see this addressed. Under any measure, this significant group of Territorians do not get a fair share of the economic and social rewards which are generated by our society as a whole. We need to find better ways of involving more Indigenous people in generating economic and social wealth and wellbeing, in order to close the gap.
The government also wants public servants to have pride in what they do, confident in the knowledge that the government, and the community they serve, values the contribution they make. I want to promote the idea that part of being a public servant goes beyond pay and conditions. It is the idea that we receive personal, individual benefit from doing good work which, ultimately, is for the betterment of others.
From time to time, there is public debate about the number of public servants we employ. This is important, but the size of the public service is directly linked to the services the government directs the NTPS to deliver. The Territory has grown and so have the demands on the public service. The Henderson government makes no apologies for investing in more police, teachers and nurses.
Unlike the opposition, we have no plans for the broad-scale sacking of public servants. In raw terms, the NTPS had 17 048 full-time equivalent employees in December 2008. This is an increase of 2359 since December 2004, or 16% overall. Most of the extra public servants are in direct service delivery roles. We are committed to ensuring that the NTPS remains contemporary in the way it operates.
The government’s arrangements for the public sector are set in the Public Sector Employment and Management Act or PSEMA; regulations and by-laws; and determinations, employment instructions and instruments issued by the Commissioner for Public Employment. The PSEMA was passed in 1993 and, at the time, was considered best practice across Australia. It has served the public service well but has not been reviewed since its introduction. Importantly, the act and regulations define principles which dictate the framework for the public sector to operate.
These include:
- 1. merit is the principle by which staff are selected for appointment, promotion or transfer;
2. the principles of public administration and management, which highlight expectations, the discharge of responsibility,
promote decision-making and proper financial management;
access to training and development, and appropriate remuneration;
4. the principles of conduct for public servants;
5. the provision of consultation with employees through unions through the Public Sector Consultative Council; and
6. processes on how matters of discipline and the ability of an employee to discharge duties are to be considered.
We are at a point in the evolution of the Northern Territory Public Service where all these government arrangements should be reviewed to ensure they are modern and set for the tasks ahead. There are also several important features of the NTPS which need to be addressed to ensure it operates effectively. The NTPS employees, like the community in general, are ageing, and we need to address the question of where the next generation of public servants will come from.
Even though recent history tells us that people are working longer, it is obvious that we are experiencing a large exodus of staff with their accumulated knowledge and experience, and this will extend over the next decade. The NTPS needs a long-term human resources strategy and, in particular, a policy on workforce planning to address the issue. There is a need for a service-wide, coordinated approach to issues such as: What do we mean by workforce planning? Which methodologies are appropriate? What tools, data, and analytical capacity do we have? How do we bring all the issues together to develop a whole-of-service human resources strategy?
All agencies must invest in the development of their staff, and there is a particular need for a coordinated approach to develop executive leadership within the NTPS ranks. For the past few years this issue has been tackled on an agency by agency basis. Looking at the current group of agency chief executives, we are fortunate to have a good mix of talent. Senior positions are advertised nationally and it is encouraging that Territorians have been able to successfully compete with applicants from across Australia. We need to ensure that this ability to develop our own is maintained and nurtured. Internal applicants for leadership and management roles need development opportunities so they can meet the necessary standard in experience, qualifications and potential.
It is our government’s policy that the public sector should more closely reflect the makeup of our community. We are looking at initiatives to promote diversity in the NTPS, including employment of Indigenous Territorians, people with disabilities and those who speak English as a second language, in order to achieve our goals of better, clearer social policy and social outcomes. As the largest employer in the Northern Territory, we are making a concerted effort to make the necessary changes but it will take years in some areas to improve the outcomes.
The NTPS needs to be seen as an employer of choice. We need the best public servants delivering services in the Territory. We need a clear strategy to attract and retain Generation Y employees. We will be promoting the public service as an employer of choice, as an innovative and challenging workplace, where advancement is possible and management attitudes are responsive and modern. In a time of skill shortage, an ageing workforce and general high competition for available workers, the public service has to be sensitive to the needs and wants of not only Generation Y, but all potential employees, if we want to attract them.
We need to promote innovation in the workplace as a priority. I am pleased to detail a program of initiatives and the promotion of public servants’ values and ideals, which we have titled Reform and Revitalisation of the Public Sector, to meet the challenges of the future.
These issues start with a strategic human resources plan for the Northern Territory Public Service, which has been developed, and details specific action over the next couple of years to have a general effect on the issues I have highlighted today. Agencies are expected to develop contemporary, complementary human resources plans to suit their own particular circumstances.
This strategic plan addresses four main themes: the legislative policy and the governance base on which the NTPS operates; the attraction and retention of staff; the development of our own staff; and the promotion of public service ideals.
I have already announced a review of the government's arrangements which dictate how the public service operates. The PSEMA, the regulations, by-laws and employment instructions are being reviewed to ensure they are contemporary. In addition to amendments to the act coming from the review, I foreshadowed a proposed change to the definition of ‘merit’ so that the diversity value an applicant might bring to the workplace will be considered when deciding who is the most suitable applicant.
‘Diversity’ would fit with considerations of knowledge, skills, qualifications, experience and potential for future development when determining merit.
The review will look at the current legislative and procedural arrangements covering discipline, inability and medical incapacity in the public service to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between public service managers being able to act in these matters and natural justice and fairness being available to employees.
Another initiative is attracting and retaining staff. The ability for the NTPS, like any organisation, to attract retain staff is a combination of pay and conditions, the culture, opportunities for development and career progression, flexible work arrangements, work satisfaction, and generally whether they satisfy the personal motivators of staff and those who might be looking to join.
There are several things we are doing aimed at improving our ability to attract and retain staff. We will be looking at our wages policy. The current policy has been in place since 2006 and has generally served the Northern Territory well; it has resulted in the public sector being fairly paid and amongst the best paid in Australia. We must be competitive to attract the necessary skills and experiences to the Northern Territory. We need to ensure this remains the case.
For the Commissioner of Public Employment and his staff, 2007-08 in particular, has seen a heavy workload. They have negotiated 11 workplace agreements for the Northern Territory public sector’s approximately 16 500 public servants. These collective agreements include:
NT Public Sector 2008-2010 Union Collective Agreement covering approximately 9000 employees;
NT Public Sector Teacher and Educator 2008-2010 Union Collective Agreement covering approximately 2900 teachers and education support staff;
NT Public Sector Nurses 2008-2011 Collective Agreement covering approximately 1800 registered and enrolled nurses and nurse managers;
Medical Officers (Northern Territory Public Sector) 2008-2010 Workplace Agreement covering approximately 450 medical officers, including specialists;
Dental Officers (NTPS) 2008-2011 Agreement covering approximately 20 public dentists;
Northern Territory Police Force Consent Agreement 2008 covering approximately 13 000 police officers, auxiliaries and Aboriginal Community Police Officers;
Prison Officers (NTPS) 2007-2011 Certified Agreement covering approximately 360 prison officers;
2007-2010 Power and Water Union Collective Agreement covering approximately 750 employees of the Power and Water Corporation;
Darwin Port Corporation Marine Pilots Union Collective Agreement covering four marine pilots;
NT Public Sector Fire and Rescue Service 2007-2010 Partnership Agreement covering approximately 160 firefighters; and
Darwin Port Corporation (NTPS) 2008 Union Collective Agreement covering approximately 55 employees, including service workers and administration employees.
I am pleased to say that these agreements have delivered financially responsible outcomes for the government. The agreements have promoted the reputation of the Northern Territory Public Service as an employer of choice, through the continuation of fair wages outcomes and the introduction of a range of flexible working arrangements that help employees balance their work and family life.
A whole-of-service approach to workforce planning will be developed by the Commissioner of Public Employment to assist agencies in addressing the question of how to find and retain the next generation of public servants, given the ageing of the workforce and the general skills shortage in this country. The aim is to better position agencies to make workforce-related decisions based on evidence and analysis and to meet their service obligations to the government and the community into the future.
In an effort to encourage agencies to meet the government’s policy objective of the Northern Territory Public Service more closely resembling Northern Territory society, we will do two things. First, we are looking at changing the definition of ‘merit’ in the Public Sector Employment and Management Act as part of the review of the act, to include consideration of diversity in the workplace. Second, the commissioner is reviewing all existing policies aimed at assisting those in society who need it, such as the Willing and Able policy for those with disabilities, the Indigenous Employment and Career Development Strategy, and the current approach to work/life balance. In addition, each agency chief executive will introduce the Chief Minister’s Innovation, Recognition and Reward Program and tailor it to their business. We want to recognise excellence in the public service. It could be a simple, ‘well done’ or additional development opportunities for those who perform well.
We need to develop staff at all levels so the public sector can continue to improve services to Territorians. There is much to do in this area, but one specific need is the development of leadership capacity within the service.
To enable us to continuously refresh senior and middle executive ranks, a comprehensive service-wide executive leadership framework has been put in place. This initiative will complement the fine work many agencies are currently doing to develop their staff. The framework has a centrally coordinated talent identification process, to develop the brightest and best who have the potential to become managers or leaders. There will be many development options available, including executive coaching, mentoring, development experiences in other agencies, or involvement in a range of structured and less formal development programs.
In addition, the NTPS has become a financial member of the Australian and New Zealand School of Government. ANZSOG, as it is known, is regarded in our part of the world as the pre-eminent provider of a range of leadership and specific issue programs for senior public sector executives. Chief executives are required to lift the bar in providing leadership to the service. They are expected not only to achieve the business outcomes required by the government, but also to take responsibility for the productivity of the service. I am pleased to advise that agency chief executives meet regularly to discuss these matters in the Coordination Committee. CEOs are expected to embrace and promote the high ideals of the public service, which include:
driving improvements throughout the Territory;
There is certainly much to be done to ensure our public servants, who have served the Northern Territory so well over the last 30 years, continue to play their part in the future of the Northern Territory. This is very important work. An energetic and appropriately resourced public service is required to deliver on this government's commitment to protecting Territory jobs, our economy and our future. This government will continue to pay close attention to the health and wellbeing of the public service.
The Henderson government is truly committed to addressing workplace issues in the NTPS to maximise performance and effectiveness.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly to take note of the statement.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, in response to this statement, I say, that if it comes to the nub of the issue, which is the morale of the public sector, morale is something which must be managed very carefully, and not abused or misused. To make the allegations contained in this statement, which have been perpetrated and carried again and again by the government, regarding the position we took to the last election, which was very dishonestly presented during the campaign, in terms of the intention to slash, and savagely and callously reduce the public sector; is plainly wrong.
It does you no service whatsoever in giving substance to the aspirations that are described in terms of lifting, inspiring and strengthening our public servants. We at no stage spoke of such callous measures. We only acknowledged there was a need to ease the numbers back, a position which was described again and again by the former Treasurer, but failed to be delivered. It is simply that.
At no stage was there one frontline public servant who needed to be concerned, because the purpose of the policy announcements, which are contained here and which members opposite clearly have no interest in reading the substance of - they prefer to go to the headline act and try to frighten for political purposes, and denigrate something which is, in fact, a considered piece - which was to strengthen service delivery. That was the sole purpose.
The ministerial statement, which is titled Reform and Revitalisation, needs to be backed up with something that is fresh, new and invigorating. But what we have is a fairly pedestrian walk down a street, pointing out the interesting things, it is more like a weather report; there is nothing startlingly new in this. It is just an observation of the landscape, and there is nothing of reform. Reform is reshaping, revitalising, putting life back into something, and I do not see anything other than the pedestrian or the mundane. You are stating the bleeding obvious so many times in the things referred to here. I believe our public servants require more than a statement made by the government, much more; more substance, more to reach in and cause them to be inspired to follow. I believe that is the issue.
In your statement we enter the realm of sloganeering. It is easy to grab phrases and buzz words and create the impression of something which may be lacking in substance. It is like confectionery; it is pleasant and it gives you a sugar hit and nothing else after that. If you just have slogans like the ‘can-do attitude of the Territory’ and refer to it colloquially as something people know about; you need to think about that a little more deeply.
The Territory has been referred to as a place with a ‘can-do’ attitude. Many of the public servants in the Territory are legendary and nationally recognised and some of them have gone on to do marvellous things around the nation; they displayed something extraordinary. It started in 1978. I was living in Western Australia and heard marvellous things were happening in the Territory; innovations which spread and influenced many things around the country. Why was that? It was because those who led had the courage to lead. You were able to take the risk and bear the challenge of leadership from the front. That is the executive arm of government; the Cabinet. They are the ones who have the responsibility and the authority, in fact, the obligation to provide the leadership. If you provide the leadership then your troops will lift but, if you do not provide the leadership and you defer to those who are behind you, and you say: ‘I do not know. What do you think?’ You become captured by the system.
Then the risk is absorbed by the system and the system is inherently adverse to risk because they are doing their job. The leadership is to be provided by the executive arm, but if it is not carried by the executive arm back into the organisation, by being adverse to risk, you will find it subtly changes. You will find a consideration or a review. You will find many other actions will take place, but no action which results in a clear outcome, because they are desperate for leadership from the front.
To illustrate, I will share a story that I am very fond of because it illustrates this point rather than talking around it, which may be hard to understand. I ran the story past Paul Everingham, the former Chief Minister, and asked if it was true and he gave me a beautiful smile and said: ‘It might be’. The story illustrates the leadership provided by the executive arm which lifts the public service and provides morale, and you can cut through, inspire and achieve outcomes.
There was a time when there was no flyover on Bagot Road, and when Palmerston was developing we had trouble with traffic coming into town. People made a lot of noise for a long time; there was a little change, but hardly enough. The pressure mounted and then a solution was sought and demanded. At that time Bagot Road had no flyover, and there was a lot of congestion with people trying to get to work in Darwin, and pressure was mounting. A solution was required.
The executive arm, Paul Everingham, the Chief Minister at the time, called in his senior public servants and said to two of them, who were in Transport and Works at that stage: ‘You know that road that comes in from Bagot Road and joins the Stuart Highway? There is a lot of congestion and the traffic cannot get through’. ‘Yes, we know Chief Minister’. ‘Well, we have to fix that’. ‘Yes, that is right. There is a big problem’. And he said: ‘What we need is a flyover’. And one said: ‘Goodness me, Chief Minister that is a very expensive option’. The other one said: ‘As an engineer, it is very difficult to construct a flyover in a situation like that’. Paul said: ‘Well, that is a damn shame, because we have a problem and we need a flyover’. The bean counter said: ‘Chief Minister, I understand we have a problem. But it is very expensive’. The engineer said: ‘It will be very difficult to build’. So Paul said: ‘That is a damn shame. Anyway, you blokes, would you like to sign these couple of letters I have?’ ‘What are they, Chief Minister?’ He said: ‘They are your resignations. You see I need a couple of blokes who can build me a flyover’. And they said: ‘Hang on, hang on’. They did not sign the pieces of paper, and they went away and solved the problem. I understand the flyover won an award.
That is leadership from the front. You carry the risk. If you make four or five decisions like that and get a couple wrong, you get three right and you have provided that lift. The burden of risk is taken from those who are the servants and given to the master, which is the executive arm - the ones elected to achieve something.
You get that lift, you get that cut-through and you release the potential of the public service. I admire the public service immensely. I have had a fair bit to do with education and what I like about the public service is its dedication. You are quite right, minister, referring to that ethos of wanting to make a contribution and having a sense of pride in having designed a bridge, a road, or this policy that has delivered this result. People look back with pride. You go to other places and you meet someone who says: ‘I used to work in the Territory and I had a part to play in this, that or the other’.
There is a fellow out in Palmerston and he was involved in the research farms. He talks fondly about the things he did. There is a certain pride that does not come from the amount of money you earned, but from the things you have done as an achievement - and they refer to the leadership of the time.
Free them up, so that they can use their skills for solving problems; but the risk should be carried from the front. That is how you unlock the ‘can-do’ attitude. Leadership at the front which believes they can do and must do, because they have been elected to lead. That is the single issue that needs to be addressed, and that was the core response we had to the public sector reform that we took to the last election.
I was horrified by the member for Karama running very expensive advertisements, with her face beside them, almost tripling the numbers we said we intended to make, which were largely in the public relations area and senior executives, and were quite defined, and then there was natural attrition. At no stage was any frontline public servant compromised. You had the capacity in an election to tell barefaced lies that were paid for with your smiling face next to them, and you dare to come in here and say: ‘You know, the morale of the public sector is so important’. Well, you are responsible for terrifying them for political purposes, and you terrify with a falsehood.
Then you say the Country Liberals are always attacking senior public servants. Get it right. Have you seen what has happened in those recent conflicts where they talk about human shields? We are always putting the government to account. What does the government do? They grab a public servant and put them in front and say: ‘Do not attack the public service’. Excuse me, we are talking to you! And they hold a public servant in front; that is called taking a human shield. Cowards do that when they go into battle. If you think that we are attacking public servants, get it clear;, we are attacking you and your failure to deal and take responsibility for the leadership that you are required to take because you are elected.
Every four years you go to the electorate and if you have made a number of decisions and got them all wrong – well, fair cop - but if you have made decisions, people say: ‘Good on you, at least you gave it a shot. You made some decisions, you took a risk and you served our interests’. They will keep you going there, and they will keep you going forever and a day.
But if you continue to play word games and you are the centre of it - the interests of the people are not at the centre of it - you will spend a huge amount of money making sure you promote the government. I could not believe it. On Friday I went down Mitchell Street to say farewell to a good friend, and what do you think I found on the footpath? In one of the units down there, a whole row of letterboxes. There were 40 glossy brochures telling us about Tiger Brennan or something?
We are getting them out in Palmerston now. More glossy brochures. I thought they had gone away. They are back. Glossy brochures about Weddell - half a decade away. What is it with you guys? Are your energy and resources expended in constantly promoting government? That is not the business. The business is achieving something - achieving a result. You do not even have to promote that.
I spoke to a wise man recently. In fact, it was Paul Everingham. He said: ‘Do not just keep telling people about what you are going to do with law and order. Just do it. Do not bother them with all the stories about plasma screen televisions, and we are going to do this, and a photo of a scary-looking kid who is going to come and get you’. You have all these glossy brochures coming out, and people think: ‘Oh my goodness, the government is really onto this; that is really good’. And nothing happens - except glossy brochures. God, you should get sacked for that!
People want you to fix the thing, not make a big hullabaloo about it; about how good you are, or how much you recognise the problem. We are going to look at this, we are going to talk about that, we are going to put up a brochure here, we are going to put a sign up here, and we are going to hold a group meeting here, have a group hug there - and nothing happens. People get fed up with it. The country is getting fed up with that sort of stuff. Worst of all, the people who are remote from here are desperate; they have almost given up. Hope has evaporated. I do not reckon there is much here that is going to provide revitalisation. Come on, you are dressing it up!
Revitalisation? It is just like the batteries have gone a bit flat and you are going to change the brand of battery. It is nothing! There is no reshaping, no reform, no inspiring redirection, no drilling down to see what the core business is - service to the public.
Did you know there is a saying: ‘good leaders change organisations’, as though that is an achievement? So, we restructure everything; move all the deckchairs around. Yes, we have had a successful reorganisation. But great leaders change the way people think and feel. They lift people and bring out their potential. You deal with something deeper than just organisational change. People are desperate for something deeper. We have words here that say: ‘We are looking at changing the definition of this word. We are looking at a range of initiatives. We are considering this and we are considering that. We believe this, that and the other, and our policy is one of inclusion and diversity and recognising the diversity of the Territory’.
I am sorry - and I am not saying this because I am in the opposition and you are in the government, therefore, this cannot be good – this is not good. It is not inspiring enough to lift the skin off custard. It needs something different. Perhaps you are just running short on time, I do not know The public servants I know, who have degrees, who work hard, and who are dedicated to the Territory - I do not believe they will get past page 3 of that; really they will not. It is a statement delivered in parliament – a beautiful building, with wonderful people supporting us and spending long hours. I believe we could have done a lot better.
The Territory population has increased by about 10%. In certain sections of the public service, particularly in senior executive positions, there has been a large increase. It is explained that it is because of the complexity of government. Complexity could be reduced if the government led and carried it out front, like a train pulling the rest of the carriages along, rather than all going down to the carriages and having group meetings and things. Get out there and take the show somewhere. You need a purpose, and the purpose is delivered by the one who is driving the show; the ones who have been charged with the responsibility to lead.
There has been about an 18% increase, and I believe that is due largely to those who are not serving the public, but serving the interests of government. That is the element that needs to be removed. If you are there to mind the interest of the government - no matter what you say or how you dress it - if the energy is flowing around the government and looking after the interests of the government, you end up with a real problem. It becomes expensive, you are not able to effectively serve the interest or the needs of the people, and people become disillusioned.
The government becomes more powerful - power begets power - and you end up with the people missing out because they are no longer the emphasis. There are good public servants - thousands of them – who are desperate to serve their communities and to make a legacy, and they see the energy and resources go to mind the interest of the government, and that should not be. That is corruption, in the sense that the natural flow should be delivering services out to the community. And I mean that in a pure sense. Do not think I am a bit nervous of you guys over there, because you will grab that word and say: ‘Oh, you are talking about corruption in the public service’. If you try that, I will have you, because that is plain wrong.
I believe evidence of this warped thinking is that you get caught up in this idea that delivering a program is a result, or spending money is an achievement or an outcome. If you ran a business like that, you might say: ‘We have had a great day, we spent all this money’. Fantastic, you have spent all this money! I will use a farming analogy - it is like I had 1000 tonnes of wheat and I put it all in the ground. Excellent, that is fantastic, we have sown all the paddocks, but we have sown it in the middle of summer. That does not matter, I have actually put all the seeds in the ground, and achieved the objective.
However, your objective is to put it in at the right time so you end up with a harvest, with a result from your efforts, not do it just to go through the process. We see this going through the process and the delivery of programs as the result. It is so confusing – yet it is so clear - and we hear it again and again. The problem in health: ‘You guys are barking up the wrong tree, we have spent all this money’.
I cannot believe, after nine years, we are hearing the same stuff. Problems in education: ‘You guys cannot talk; we are spending all this money’. We are talking about the results in the NAPLAN tests. We are talking about the waiting list at the hospital. ‘But we are spending more money than you blokes ever did’. We are still hearing that strange talk. Let us get to the end of the process. You put this in and you got that out - measured results. Public servants, serving the community and achieving something to their benefit; not yours – so that you sound good and look good - that is the sort of reform that is needed; a change of thinking.
We have heard the slogans, and you have probably heard them: ‘the whole new era in Corrections’ and ‘a new way of thinking’. Well, it sounds like focus group stuff, and it actually sounds like the position the opposition took to the last election, to be frank with you. I do not know whether you saw the ads that I saw during the campaign. I did not see the ads that you made featuring me, because I was too busy, but you may have seen the ads that I did, which contain some of the words that the new minister has been using, and I do not mind that, because I believe that is right. That is the way I believe we should go.
But when we talk about ‘a whole new era in Corrections’, we are dressing it up; I do not know whether you actually believe that, or it just sounds really good. I want to be convinced, and you cannot be convinced anymore by slogans; you cannot sloganeer your way through. People are smarter than that. I mean, you cannot con kids, as a teacher, by spruiking on all the time and being unreal; they will see right through it. Our community is pretty smart. They will see through it, and you become sort of irrelevant, they will just be polite to you and all that, but they say: ‘When is that next election?’
Anyway, I hope that some of the things I have said fall on some fertile soil, somewhere. I am not just having a go here, there are some great opportunities, and I believe, with the title Reform and Revitalisation, they are having a lend of us. It is a weather report; they are having a bit of a look around, saying: ‘Look at all this stuff, we are going to look at this, we are going to look at that, we are considering this, and we might even change the definition of the word merit’, and a few other things. I believe they need to dig a little deeper.
I know many public servants who I have the highest admiration for. They deserve good leadership, and if I am ever given the opportunity, I will take the risk burden from them and carry it personally. The buck will stop with the executive arm of government; we will provide that leadership, I will carry the risk from the front, and I will cop that at the election. But I will make decisions so that public servants can be led and be empowered to achieve marvellous things for the Northern Territory. We could do it, and I believe it is time to bring the genuine – not the slogan – ‘can-do’ attitude back to the Territory because we could really sort some things out.
We could really work some difficult stuff out, I believe the atmosphere is just right for that. We have people desperate for change, leadership, good decision-making and courage. If you want to bring a ‘can-do’ attitude back, get up the front and lead; take some risks, dig a bit deeper and, please, give us a statement with a bit more substance than this.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister for Public Employment’s statement outlining the government’s recognition of our hard-working public servants. I agree with one point the Leader of the Opposition mentioned and that is the community is really smart and has a very long memory. The years of Porky have long gone …
A member: They will never forget you.
Mr VATSKALIS: … things were done differently in the Territory – it was described by different names, but the community remembered the Cresap Review the CLP put in place and resulted in completely decimating the public service. I remember a few years after I came to the Territory there was Planning for Growth which was supposed to reduce the number of public servants and reduce costs. It cost $65m and it was abolished and abandoned …
A member: I remember it.
Mr VATSKALIS: … and delivered nothing. I am glad the member opposite remembers because there were actually people called ‘toe cutters’. I will not reveal the name because he was supposed to cut a lot of …
A member: What was the nickname, Pruning for Growth? Was that it?
Mr VATSKALIS: Planning for Growth and it finished up being called ‘Pruning for Growth’ by the public service. It cost $65m; it did not save a dollar. I remember time after time driving into work and someone telling us about the new reality. We were sitting there bored out of our brains wondering what we would have for lunch, and nothing changed. That was how the CLP dealt with the public service.
I have to say if you go to elections you are a real dill to come out and say: ‘I am going to cut so many positions, so many contracts’. Hello! This is a public service town. There are 13 000 people who work for the public service and you start telling them you are going to cut 600 positions.
Mr Elferink: Yes, we know. We were honest with them. We made a conscious decision to be honest with them.
Mr VATSKALIS: I think you lost about 2500 votes. It was great. In my electorate it was fantastic, because I have quite a few public servants and because I worked for the public service for 19 years, I know quite a few of them.
To come in and tell us what happened when Everingham was the Chief Minister - they were different times. I remember when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was in government in Queensland. Every time he had a Cabinet meeting he put a letter in front of every member and said: ‘Sign here’. They were resignation letters, and he held them in his drawer and if that member dared to challenge him or oppose his opinion, the letter would appear on the table and he would say: ‘I accept your resignation’. That was the way things were done in those days; but things have changed.
Public servants today do not come from down south for two years and then go back. Public servants come to the Territory and build a career. Public servants come from other places in Australia and build a successful career. The people who come to the Territory are people who have drive, vision and are prepared to work very hard; and they do work very hard.
In 1992, I saw an advertisement in the Western Australian newspaper for a position in Darwin; it was January or February 1992. I received a response in June 1992, my interview was in December 1992 and I came to Darwin on 4 December 1992. I remember because my son’s birthday was on the 6th. So I came up on the 4th, I had my interview and flew back for my son’s birthday. I enjoyed Darwin but I was also very comfortable where I was. But here there was a challenge, and I took that challenge because that is what public servants do. People who want to be public servants like to work somewhere different, and if they want to deliver something, they like the challenge and they take the challenge. I am very pleased I did that, because if I had stayed in Western Australia, I do not think I would be talking to you today.
Public servants contribute directly to the economic and social environment of our community in many ways. I recognise and acknowledge the considerable work the Northern Territory Public Service makes across my portfolios of Health, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources and, of course, Racing, Gaming and Licensing and Alcohol Policy.
The Department of Health and Families - I have actually lived through the Department of Health and Community Services and Territory Health Services. I remember when they first came up with the logo we used to call it ‘Territory Hair Care’, because it was a face with hair flowing at the back. I came and I lived through different transformations with the Department of Health and Community Services to Health and Families, as it is now known.
I came in 1993 and worked as a manager of Environmental Health in the Darwin region, which then expanded to take in everything north of Katherine, including Gove, and many other things. I enjoyed my time in the public service and I know how hard public servants work.
When I first came here as a manager of Environmental Health, the department employed 4000 people. Today I am the minister for the department and we employ over 5100 people, and they do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. It is not only in the city, but out in the communities. I have friends working in Gove, Katherine, Yirrkala, and Ngukurr, and they work under difficult conditions.
Things have improved in these communities, but in 1993 it was like a third world country hitting me in the face. When I drove to Ngukurr and I saw it; it is a great place to drive to, but that was it. Now things are much better and we believe they are going to be better still. But things got better because public servants worked very hard.
Teachers work very hard - and I do not say that because I am married to a teacher - they go to school at 8 am and school finishes at 3 pm, but does she come home at 3 pm? No, she comes home at 5 pm, 5.30 pm or 6 pm. What does she do after that? After dinner she probably has to do some marking or prepare for the next day. They work very hard; they make a hell of a difference.
If you want to see people working hard look at nurses in remote communities. Being a policeman in the community is another profession which demands much effort, attention and personal sacrifice. Being a policeman in a small community where you know everyone and have to apply the law and sometimes have to actually step in and throw the book, is not like in Sydney and other places where the crime is very serious. It is petty crimes, it is drunkenness; things that destroy families and destroy communities, and people have to stand up and say no, you cannot do it any more.
It does not matter where our public servants are: in the city, in the towns, in the bush or in small communities; they are working very hard. In particular, the people who work for the Health department because they are dealing with things that actually create problems for people; people’s lives are at risk, kids are sick, alcohol, domestic violence, as we mentioned before, women turning up to the clinic, bashed. I will never forget a woman in Halls Creek. She came staggering into the petrol station with a star picket protruding from her chest. Her husband had thrown a star picket at her and it went through her and it had to be attended to.
Our workforce is our greatest asset; nurses and doctors, allied health professionals, environmental health officers, Aboriginal liaison officers, Aboriginal health workers, support staff, managers - they are working very hard because they want to make a difference in the Territory, for themselves and Territorians.
The national and international health workforce is facing serious shortages. We cannot get nurses anywhere, not only in Australia, and not in other places. I will give you an example. I was in Greece recently, for personal reasons, and the majority of the nurses in Greece are Filipinos. Locals will not go into nursing - they do not like it, they do not want to do it - so Greece imports Filipino nurses from the other side of the world - that happens everywhere. I recall a few years ago that we employed some Filipino nurses who were trained in Ireland because we could not find Australian nurses.
The Department of Health and Families has launched a strategic workforce plan 2008-11 to address the challenges and ensure our workforce matches our workplace needs now and in the future. The key area of focus within the plan includes: an evidence-based approach to inform workplace decisions and best practice planning models; attracting and retaining talent, including growing our own; more flexible recruitment options and modernising workplace practices; strengthening a capable workforce by investing in career development and driving change to prepare for the needs of the future; a supportive and engaging workplace to facilitate staff having a real input into decision-making, career pathways, work-life balance and acknowledging successes and challenges.
I know this probably sounds like a motherhood statement and you have seen it every where. The reality is how you translate this. I give you a commitment that this is going to be translated into reality in the Health department because I have been there before and I have heard these beautiful statements and, I have to admit, it does not always happen. Some things will happen, some things will not happen, depending on the manager, but now it is going to happen, because we have no option. We have to grow our own workforce; we have to actually give the opportunity to people to be further educated in order to fill the gaps. Each focus has defined measures to be reported upon regularly, through formal management reports and via feedback from staff surveys. I will hold the managers responsible for this, and I will speak with the staff myself, rather than look at the surveys.
The department of Health will continue to develop cultural diversity within the workforce, and has developed specific strategies and targets for expanding the Aboriginal and Torres Islander workforce. I recall that the Health department did very well in training people in cross-cultural workshops, providing information about Indigenous people, and people from non-English speaking backgrounds. I am amazed when people come from another state and are totally ignorant of the sensitivities of Aboriginal culture or the sensitivities of Greek, Italian, Thai or Chinese cultures.
Over 60% of our clients are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, yet, only 10% of our workforce is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. We are working to create an inclusive working environment, where the experience, knowledge and skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are valued, so that we can continue to improve our service and get closer to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. I really vouch for that because I worked as clinic manager at the Danila Dilba Medical Service in Darwin, and the Indigenous people who were trained as Aboriginal Health Workers were magnificent. They could easily identify with the needs and the wants of Indigenous people and provide culturally appropriate treatment.
I turn now to Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. In output, mining is the largest industry in the Territory, contributing 26% of the Gross State Product in 2006-07, compared to 7% nationally. At the moment we are undergoing a crisis internationally, but things are already starting to look brighter and China is already appearing to negotiate new prices. We have to be prepared for the next boom in resources, and the only way we can do that is to assist junior and mid-sized explorers of the Northern Territory to access equity in the current economic climate. That is the reason we have to bring forward discovery and to assist junior and mid-sized explorers with money to commence exploration again.
We are the only jurisdiction in Australia currently to have a Chinese strategy – and not only a Chinese strategy, but also a Japanese strategy. Others are rushing to imitate us, trying to put together something to take to China, where we have been for the past two years. My recent visit to China, in November 2008, opened the door to industry representatives from over 30 Chinese companies: Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, Energy Metals Limited, Territory Uranium Company Limited, TNG Limited and promoted over 20 Territory exploration projects to potential Chinese investors. Not only that, we have attracted Chinese commerce to explore in the Territory. We already have people in the Territory who have based their company in offices in Cullen Bay; it is a Chinese company doing their own work. How did this happen? Because the people in the department were really happy to develop the strategy, to develop web pages and translate web pages, and had the skills to speak Mandarin, so whenever we go to China we have the advantage to speak to the people in their own language.
There are many opportunities in the Territory, and those opportunities have become reality because of the hard work of the Mines department. More is happening and more is being done because they have the enthusiasm. I recall when it was originally suggested that we should go out and promote the Territory, some people, especially after the event, said: ‘This has never happened before, we cannot do it; we do not know how to do it’. However, later on they were very enthusiastic, very keen and we developed this strategy together. People designed books, promotional materials, booklets, and everything we have in order to promote the Territory. We translated them into Chinese and took them with us and those people’s enthusiasm was infectious.
I am really pleased and really proud that I was with these people in China. Their work in China is really well known. When you are summoned to meet the General Director of the Chinese Nuclear Energy Commission, you know they know about you and they want to see you. This shows that the department does an excellent job, and the Northern Territory Minerals department’s fame has crossed the border and everybody knows about it in China.
Another group of hard-working people are the people in Primary Industry and Fisheries. The work that Fisheries is doing is unbelievable because, not only do we have to deal with commercial fishermen, we have to deal with amateur fishermen, Indigenous interests and, at the same time, ensure the fishing resources remain for years to come. We do not want to exploit it the way it has been in other places.
To give an example: in Western Australia, you cannot catch a shark north of Carnarvon and you cannot catch a lobster because, at the moment, the recruitment for lobsters is zero - that means for the next five years there will not be legal-sized lobsters to catch. The government in Western Australia has now expanded the close of season in order to protect the resources.
We have tried that before. We have done all the research and our department has put in place some guidelines and legislation, and is working very closely with the industry. This is the only place in Australia that you will not hear the industry complaining that the department comes and puts on conditions or restrictions, because they know the department has consulted and there is always a scientific reason.
The Primary Industry Group within my department was recently reviewed and has been restructured to such a degree that now people know where they are and know what their focus is. Industry is happy about it, and when industry is happy it does not bug the department, which is very good. I would not feel very good if the industry we are supposed to represent and work with comes and bugs me. That is demoralising. But now people are looking forward, and they are refocused and enthusiastic about what they are doing.
To give an example of how my Department of Primary Industry works. They are not afraid to travel out of the Territory and interstate because they are very well regarded interstate and internationally. I have been to Sabah and I only heard high praise about the department; I have been to the Philippines and the key thing I heard about the Department of Primary Industry was high praise. We went to Vietnam and had a meeting with Vietnamese government officials. We had the opportunity to meet again the next day to work together and develop a protocol, and not one of the officials hesitated, and within 24 hours we had a draft for a protocol which was submitted to the Commonwealth when we came back, and was approved. That is how good the department is. They are not afraid to get their hands dirty.
We have people in the department going to Sabah and teaching people how to establish an abattoir and also how to kill animals, halal, and how to bone and cut the animals in the way western tourists like, and they are very highly regarded. These people have now developed friendships and relationships and exchange information between the Territory and their state, and the relationship is very well advanced.
Yesterday, in reply to my statement to the House, the member for Goyder was rather critical of the department, the public service and its role and how it works when she said, and I quote:
The Mango Workshop mentioned that was held earlier this month was not an initiative of the government, it was an industry initiative as that industry
was fed up with the government dicking around and showing no direction as to their industry and its future.
Madam Speaker, allow me to read a letter I received from the Northern Territory Mango Industry Association, signed by Peter Marks, the President, and I quote:
- Dear Kon,
Thanks for your department’s support for the Mango Research Development Forum. The event was very well received by industry participants due to a very
well planned and well organised event by staff of the division of Horticulture.
It closes saying:
- Thanks again for your support. We now feel much more confident about the future.
When the industry comes out with a letter like that, that clearly says the department did an excellent job organising the forum and we thank you very much because now we feel more confident for the future, I do not think I have to stand up and say anything more about my department. They deserve congratulations.
I would like to turn now to the dedicated team within the Department of Racing, Gaming and Licensing and Alcohol Policy. They have a huge task. We know we have problems with alcohol and these people are working very hard. Not only are they responsible for regulating the hospitality and gaming industry, but they are also involved in developing future policies for how we, as a community, deal with the alcohol issues around the Territory. They are a very hard-working bunch of professionals and I thank them for their efforts in making the Territory a better place to live, work and raise a family.
I had a lot to do with the Licensing Branch and the licensing people in my previous life as an environmental health officer, and also in my time as a member of parliament, regarding difficult issues with some of the small supermarkets which were abusing the system. I have to say the licensing people were absolutely helpful, not only to me but to the community, and they work very hard to make sure the system is not abused and people are not selling gallons of alcohol to people it should not be sold to, especially Indigenous people.
In closing, Madam Speaker, we acknowledge and recognise the considerable contribution and commitment of the Northern Territory Public Service. We recognise it and we value the public service, and we are prepared to work together with the public service because the reality is, these are the people on the front line; these are the people who deliver services to all Territorians.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, if there was ever any evidence, or any doubt, that this government is in some disarray as to the arrangements in relation to how they operate, surely there is no greater evidence than the fact that the Minister for Public Employment delivers a statement, when it is clear from the website, the department is still under the impression that the member for Karama, the Honourable Delia Lawrie, MLA, is its minister. I urge honourable members to visit the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment’s website, where they will discover the Minister for Public Employment in the Northern Territory is the member for Karama.
If there has ever been an example of puffery in this House, this ministerial statement would have to be it. The reason that I make those comments can be captured by the sometimes Minister for Public Employment’s letter, the Honourable Rob Knight - I am sorry, is he the Minister for Public Employment? No, it is Delia, or whoever - the Minister for Public Employment’s letter to staff which has been addressed to all Northern Territory public sector employees. Whilst I appreciate, from the discussion paper on the website, that this is the result of a commitment given to public servants during the election campaign that there would be a review, this government is not really that serious about it.
I am somewhat struck that this is a little like a scene from a Yes, Minister episode; where the minister is sitting there drumming his or her fingers on his or her desk, impatiently wondering what they can do, when Sir Humphrey walks in and discusses the issue with the minister and the minister says: ‘Well, I am a little worried about being seen to be a good minister and all that sort of thing. What sort of thing should I do, Sir Humphrey?’ And Sir Humphrey dutifully says: ‘Well, you can have a review, minister’. ‘Yes, that is a good idea. I will have a review’, says the minister. That really is the smell and the taste of this.
I draw member’s attention to the letter that went out to public servants, reproduced on the website. It says: ‘Reform and Revitalisation of the Northern Territory Public Sector’. It goes on to say, and I quote:
- However, like all our institutions, it needs, from time to time, to be rejuvenated, re-invigorated and massaged, to ensure it is able to operate effectively.
There is another word for massage, it is manipulation. If one goes to see a chiropractor or a person who deals in the tactile therapies they will refer to massage and manipulation as alternative words. I suspect that particular observation holds true in this environment. The minister continues:
- All of this work will be undertaken over the next couple of years…
Next couple of years:
- and you will be kept up to date on progress and invited to have input in a variety of ways.
It is going to take a couple of years, but the deadline for submissions, according to the website, is the 31 March 2009. What exactly is going to happen between the 31 March 2009 when I can put in my submission, which is in a little over a month’s time, and the next couple of years? It is hardly what you would call a dedicated time-line. ‘Couple’ generally refers to two, and it is used as often as not in the vernacular simply as an approximation. This is not what you would consider to be a top-of-mind issue as far as the minister is concerned: yes, we will get around to it in the next couple of years. Yes, we are going to, let us see, we are going to rejuvenate, reinvigorate and massage over the next couple of years.
There is a philosophical thread which is not consistent or being followed in the minister’s approach. These are platitudes - rejuvenated, reinvigorated and massaged - not clear directions from a minister. These are simply going through the motions because we made a promise in the election period to do something about the state of the public service. That really draws us to where we are at with this. Of course, the government wants to do something about the public service, because in the period leading up to the last Territory election, the public service was in open revolt; well, sections of the public service were in open revolt.
Someone said to me, or made the observation to me this morning: ‘But why would they be doing this? The public service hates them’. And I said: ‘That is precisely why they will be doing this’. It is because they have to start trying to send a signal out to the public service that they are actually doing something to try to improve the level of communication and the quality of service they give their public servants, as leaders. And there is good reason why so many public servants are nervous about this administration.
It started in the early days of this government when the former Ombudsman of the Northern Territory, Peter Boyce, wrote a report about the giving away of a Toyota to an individual in the Belyuen community, using the local Community Government Council as a vehicle to achieve that outcome. For honourable members’ edification, you cannot, as an Ombudsman, criticise a minister directly, so what Peter Boyce did in his report, was he attacked or criticised the public service but made it abundantly clear to anyone who read the report that the trail, the hot trail, led all the way to the minister’s office, and it was actually the minister who had directed the public service to give away a Toyota.
The rumour is, and I assert and remind honourable members that it is only a rumour, but it had something to do with settling the Kenbi Land Claim. However, it is only a rumour and that was certainly not covered by Peter Boyce. The result: all of a sudden the Ombudsman Act was changed and the legislation was changed in relation to the tenure of the Ombudsman. So Peter Boyce, who was an Ombudsman for as long as he chose to be, all of a sudden was on a five and five contract. And, oops, off he went: bye, see you later, Mr Boyce. That is really the way that these guys have operated in the past.
Let us look at another faithful and dedicated public servant to the government of the Northern Territory - Peter Campos, who has been mentioned often in this place. Peter Campos was a faithful and loyal public servant, and I take my evidence for that from the fact that he, even in a coronial investigation, sought to defend the position of the department. For that he was roundly criticised by the Coroner, but in his faithfulness and loyalty to the department, to the minister, he stuck to his guns and, after being criticised, heads had to roll. What actually happened, he was moved sideways in the public service after some extended leave, the details of which I am not sure. He was not a happy camper; he was hung out to dry by the government. But the buck stops with the minister, or should stop with the minister.
The Leader of the Opposition made the observation that there is a habit amongst these ministers to use senior public servants as human shields. That is precisely what happened in the case of the public servant who was ultimately blamed by the minister, Jack Ah Kit, for the gifting of a Toyota to the community of Belyuen. That is precisely what happened to Peter Campos, because he was a faithful and loyal public servant, and I believe that his decisions in relation to the nursing numbers issue at the hospital was as a result of directives from Cabinet or the ministers themselves. It was for that reason that he was not actually sacked, because if he was acting in a frolic of his own, as the minister at the time would suggest or would have us believe, and that he was acting independently of ministerial direction, he would not have kept him on in the public service; he would have fired him.
But he was not fired, the head did not roll, he received the public service equivalent of a shaving cut and he was moved sideways into a position, as I understand it, which carried exactly the same pay and responsibility as his role in the public service. And full well would the minister not say ‘cut him loose’. Why? Because then there would be no driver at all for Mr Campos to remain a good and faithful and loyal public servant; he would have had every reason in the world to be bitter.
In the case of Jack Ah Kit, a public servant was held up to be the human shield. In the case of failings of government in terms of nursing numbers management, a public servant was held up to be a human shield.
Let us talk about educational outcomes, where the educational ambitions of this government have not been met. Does the buck stop with the government? No, the buck does not stop with the government. The then minister for Education, in a most unusual sacking, fired her CEO and put it all down to her that education results were not what the government wanted to achieve. It was not her policy that made those educational outcomes fail; it was the policy of the Northern Territory government, the members opposite who hold ministerial rank, that failed. And who was the human shield? Poor old Margaret Banks, who wept openly when, shortly after being sacked for her incompetence – nominally - was awarded by her peers a very prestigious award in the area of education. Another human shield bites the dust.
This government wants to reassure public servants and encourage them to be open, fearless and frank. If you read the discussion paper, that is one of the elements. They talk about the Westminster system of government and political neutrality, and about a fearless and frank environment for public servants when, in actual fact, public servant seems to be a Latin translation they have on their walls upstairs that says ‘human shield’.
Let us now look at the way nurses were treated prior to the election. Small wonder they were up in arms and utterly disgruntled with what was occurring. The shifts they were being asked to work, the environment they were being asked to work in, and the circumstances they were being asked to work with were all products of poor leadership. The same thing is continuing now. We have two separate reports from the Royal Darwin Hospital Board which report on results and outcomes that show different results for the same period - which was the period 2007-08, from memory.
There are two separate and quite independent hospital board reports for the same period, producing completely different numbers for the same period. Small wonder the public servants who work in that field suddenly find themselves extremely frustrated with a lack of leadership. What happened next? A Director of Nursing fronted her minister at Rapid Creek markets. She sidestepped the chain of command and put her career on the line, and said to the minister: ‘Minister, we have a problem with nursing numbers. You need to know this’. And the minister’s response was? ‘Oh, go and see some senior public servants’.
Recently, we had the extraordinary situation where the Minister for Health, at the time, was again trying to explain away in this House a report from the second Ombudsman - the leftover Ombudsman - the one they employed who has turned out to be the very epitome of independence in the face of, I am sure, great government pressure; but the epitome of independence. She was profoundly critical of what had happened in the department. Yet again, what was the response of the minister? ‘I was misinformed by the department’. This is the second time that same minister had been misinformed by the department, and his answer was to blame the department.
When does the government become responsible for government in the Northern Territory? Surely, if the CEO was actually and actively engaged in misleading the minister or withholding information from the minister, he would have been fired; but he was not. He remains in place now. What does that tell you? It tells you that the CEO of the department, in every likelihood, did nothing wrong but, nevertheless, there was the option: hold up the CEO of the department to be a human shield.
Teachers - how long did the pay dispute go on? ‘Oh, we really respect our teachers. We really respect our teachers’. Twelve months that dragged on – over 12 months. The government’s intransigence in relation to the teacher’s dispute - inflexibility and attitude - was one of the elements which dragged that particular issue out. Small wonder the teachers were up in arms. Small wonder they were running around with placards trying to blockade the Chief Minister’s office in the middle of an election campaign - because they were furious. They were furious at the indifferent and contemptuous way in which they were being treated.
All of a sudden we get this promise from the minister saying, ‘Oh, goodness, it is time to go and review the public service’. I cannot imagine why you would take a different tack; of course you would want to review the public service. You want to send some signal that you have been listening to it. The corpses are piling up around the knees of the government, and the rest of the public service is on the verge of being in open revolt. It is about time you held out an olive branch. But the olive branch is the most lacklustre exercise I have ever seen. All this work will be undertaken over the next couple of years. It is an indifferent piece of language that demonstrates an indifferent attitude from an indifferent government as to how to inspire and to drive the public service onwards.
I pause today to make another observation. I had a question on notice. I do not have the figures in front of me right now, but the question on notice was answered, and I asked how many EOs and CEOs, which are the senior public servants, the executive public servants, are in the Department of Health? If memory serves me, the current figure was 59. I find that interesting because, if that is true, then that accords very oddly with the Chief Minister’s assertion in this place the other day that there are nearly 80 senior public servants, or executive level public servants in the public service. If that is true, if those numbers are actually correct, then the department of Health has three quarters of the executive level public servants in one department, and there are only 20 executives across the rest of government.
I suspect what is actually occurring is the way they are counting these numbers is a little fudged. And to attack the CLP because we want to actually have a look, review, and possibly even shed some of those positions, as being this horrible machine that is out to sack all these public servants, is an absolute misnomer. The sheer inaccuracy of numbers coming out the Chief Minister’s mouth, and answers to questions that we put on notice, are of such fundamental difference that it needs to be looked at. Those numbers will be looked at under a future CLP government, and proudly. We actually believe that many of these senior public servants are very capable people, and they are capable of casting a wider net as well.
We also heard from the minister in relation to the hard-working public servants, and I listened very carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about spin and all those little pamphlets which appear in our letterboxes every day. It is interesting to note that the communications section of Health – this is basically the publicity machine in the Health department – employs one executive officer and nine other staff to produce information, that is glossy brochures, press releases, keep the website going, and those sorts of things. There are essentially ten people in Health whose sole function it is to look after the image of Health. They would be hard-working public servants in this department because they have such a lot of image repairing to do. The process of worrying about image rather than actually worrying about …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the member for Port Darwin be granted an extension of time to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members and I shall not take advantage of the full 10 minutes. What this government is interested in is how they are projecting, and for this reason they have 10 people in a communications department in the department of Health headed up by an executive officer; this is the reason it is all about glossy brochures and press releases, not about substance. It is about slogans like ‘rejuvenated’, ‘reinvigorated’, ‘new era’, all of that stuff - slogans. Why not actually go and do it?
If there is ever an example of dressage; we talk about something dressed up looking like a shopfront. The government is not even hiding it anymore, because if you go to Casuarina Square, a few feet away from the police station they have a shopfront and it is all about image and it is all about demonstrating – being seen to be doing something - rather than doing it. The public are getting weary of being told things are happening, when every day they open the newspaper and read about health outcomes getting worse, education outcomes going down the gurgler, and violent crime is out of control. There is a disconnection in people’s minds between the shopfront and a glossy brochure, something shoved into the letterbox and a full page advertisement in the paper, and the fact that they are getting a smack in the mouth whilst they are walking down the street. If you can address the smack in the mouth, rather than the image, you might actually get more support.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to speak in support of this statement from the Minister for Public Employment. I echo the minister’s support for public servants.
In recognition of that we have the Public Service Medal we present to many public servants over the years. From Alice Springs, I acknowledge, and put on the public record, the extraordinary work John Baskerville has done in Alice Springs over many years. He is one of those gentlemen many of us know in this House. His tireless work and the many years he put into Alice Springs - not only in the Department of Chief Minister, but many of the other agencies in the NTPS - are to be commended.
I also place on the public record my thanks to all of those professional personnel who provide me with support through my various agencies, namely those at the Department of Business and Employment and the Territory Business Centres throughout the region, the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry and Fisheries and Resources and the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport.
In the first or second day in my job as a minister I wanted to go out and meet many of the staff members. It is a little hard in Darwin because many of the staff members are in regions, but I encourage them to be creative and innovative because, as a new minister I rely heavily on the experience and expertise of my agencies. It is important that we think outside the square and I encourage many people in my agencies to think outside the square – to be innovative, particularly with the challenges we face in regional development.
As a minister, I am focused on outcomes and it is all about jobs in our regions – that is the challenge we all face and I face, particularly as a minister. So we cannot go on in the old way. While the public service has been a nursery and groomed many of our young people over the years, we need to think outside the box and be innovative and creative, particularly when it comes to the current economic climate we face. We cannot rely heavily on the mining sector, the public service or other industries that have built the Territory to what it is today, because of the challenges we face. I encourage my department, through my CEO and Executive Directors, to be innovative and creative because that is where the jobs are going to be created in the future, particularly in the regions.
Reflecting on my personal career, I remember nearly 20 years ago I sat an entrance exam for the Australian Public Service. It was the norm for many people in Alice Springs at that time to get a job with one of the main service organisations, and one of the main employers in Alice Springs was the public service, be it the Australian Public Service or the Northern Territory Public Service.. That is where I started in the workforce. Thankfully, I was successful and I obtained an AO1 trainee position in the old Commonwealth Employment Service, the CES. We cannot underestimate the value of the public service sector, particularly in our remote regions, because that is, unfortunately, where many of the jobs are. There is not much of a labour market out there in the bush or in our regions and often the only jobs are in the public service. It certainly got my employment career started and I am sure that many others in the House and many other Territorians can recall their first job being in the public service.
The latest reform of the Northern Territory Public Service began in this new term of government when the Chief Minister made his landmark statement on 18 August 2008. The statement set a new direction for the Territory’s public service and especially for my portfolio of Regional Development. For the first time in the history of our public service, the department was moved from the seat of government to a regional centre. This policy change was about two things - economic development and job creation - but, more importantly, it was about taking the headquarters of a government department into our regions where the Territory’s wealth is created. When this policy change was first mooted we were roundly criticised by members opposite.
I state on the record that the transfer of power from Darwin to Alice Springs has been a resounding success and has been achieved with as little disruption as possible. It would be nice to say it was a seamless transfer, but that would gilding the lily, there were problems and concerns, no doubt about it, but because of the professionalism displayed by all those involved, the new arrangements are all but bedded down.
Alice Springs is not the only beneficiary of this policy initiative, both Tennant Creek and Katherine have received extra positions. I am pleased to announce that Phil Anning, another long-term Territorian and a very commendable public servant, particularly in the agricultural area; a man who has lived and worked many years in the Territory, has been appointed Regional Director for the Katherine office of Regional Development. All positions in Alice Springs have been filled, except for an AO7 position for which applications closed last week, and an AO6 position. A second position for Tennant Creek will shortly be advertised.
This policy initiative has created a much more dynamic department. The staff in Alice Springs, headed up by Fran Kilgariff, now has a much greater appreciation of issues across the whole of the Territory; they are no longer restricted or focused only on Central Australian issues. Conversely, Darwin-based staff are now in much closer communication with the Alice Springs-based staff, the Executive Director and CEO, and the department now enjoys a greater whole-of-Territory approach.
There is another aspect of this policy that deserves some comment. The devolution of power has opened up opportunities for Alice Springs-based public sector employees who want to continue to live and work in Central Australia. Until now, the structure of the Territory’s public service meant that once you reached a certain level you almost certainly had to make the trek north if you wanted to further your career. This no longer applies for this department.
For the record, there are a total of 26 staff in the department of Regional Development: Darwin - 11, Alice Springs - nine, Tennant Creek - three, Katherine – two, and Nhulunbuy - one. That gives us a total of 11 staff based in Darwin and 15, a majority, in our regions. In the future there may be further realignment with staff in regional centres, and that is something I am prepared to do. I am conscious of the fact that in Nhulunbuy they are set to receive more than $123m in SIHIP funding over the next three years. Therefore, resources from this office will be monitored closely as to where the need is.
I was also interested in the minister’s comments on attracting and retaining staff. There are a couple of policy initiatives that I will mention in relation to this. I had the pleasure on Friday, while back in Alice Springs, to present three local people with their apprenticeship scheme certificates. All three are long-term local residents of Alice Springs and, in particular, a young girl, who received her certificate in the NTPS Apprenticeship Scheme in the clerical area, who I have known since she was very small and growing up in Alice Springs.
The other one is the Australian Employment Covenant. The Chief Minister was the first territory or state leader to commit to this employment covenant with Andrew Forrest. Our commitment is 200 jobs for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory Public Service. That is very important, given that our Indigenous population in the Northern Territory is around 30%, but only 7.3% Indigenous people are employed in NTPS. Those two initiatives are very important in providing job opportunities for our Indigenous population, and truly reflecting our population in the Northern Territory.
Members will also be aware of the government’s $34m project, in collaboration with Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan and the Northern Land Council, to lay fibre optic cable across Arnhem Land. As well as the benefits of improving health and policing outcomes, and education and business opportunities, access to high speed Broadband will also help us to recruit and retain public servants to work in communities across Arnhem Land, from Oenpelli to Yirrkala. Access to this 21st century communication technology all but eliminates the tyranny of distance, making life more bearable for those people who work in some of the remotest communities in Australia.
I pay tribute to all our public servants, and I am pleased to support the minister’s statement.
In closing, with regard to professionalism, I also put on the record that it is important to work through the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. It is there to protect our public servants and it gives them the framework they need to carry out their work without fear of favour.
Mr KNIGHT (Public Employment): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank most members for their contribution to tonight’s statement. It was a very important statement, and the members of the public service, all 16 500 of them, are very important to the Northern Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition, obviously, did not think so. He talked about this as just being a weather report. He did not think that the public service needed any reform or revitalisation, as this statement alluded to. He believes the public service can just potter along until the opposition, they hope, get back into office. Woe betide the public service when that happens, because we heard again tonight the inference that there would be changes in the public service. We heard during the election campaign the policy of the CLP to reduce the public service and 700-odd jobs were to go - that is a significant amount. I wonder where those positions were to come from. We have made a huge effort to get more frontline workers so, in reducing the public service, it is quite obvious those positions are in the frame to be axed.
We have put on an extra 162 doctors and 433 nurses since coming to office. That is a huge input into the health service; a health service which struggles with a diverse demographic in the Northern Territory, a very large jurisdiction in very remote areas, and it does an exceptional job. Obviously, with the demographic and the geography of the Northern Territory, the extra 329 police constables, ACPOs and auxiliaries since 2003, have been beneficial to society. As well as that, 300 extra education staff, including 155 teachers - a significant increase - a commitment and confidence this government has in the public sector to deliver to Territorians. Every public servant provides a public service to the community, and that is why it is so very important. The PSEMA has not been reviewed since this government came in, so it is acceptable and appropriate that we do.
We have huge challenges ahead of us with respect to health, education, law and order, and infrastructure throughout the Territory. It is a challenge this government is absolutely committed to and we cannot get there without staff; without the public service. We must cherish them, nurture them, and we must attract the best quality people, so we can deliver that product to residents of the Northern Territory, because if we cannot do that, it will not be possible to provide those services. It is logical and rational to look at strategic human resources plans within the public service, and to straddle that HR plan across the various agencies of the Northern Territory Public Service, look at legislative, policy and governance changes to better gear this sector up for the challenges to be faced ahead.
We have to look at new ways of attracting and retaining our staff. Lifestyles are changing, family units are changing, demands are changing on people and their families, and we have to look at ways of accommodating that and also attracting people into the public service. It is a great organisation and a great sector to work in. I have worked in it for many years and it is something you do not do just for the money. Many public servants go well beyond the hours they are allotted for their work, they travel vast distances and they come into some very tricky and dangerous situations. But they continue to do it, because they know that type of work is beneficial to the community, and I am sure they get personal satisfaction from it.
One of the other important areas I alluded to, which the opposition leader did not think was important enough to even acknowledge, and disregarded this statement’s acknowledgement of in our Northern Territory Public Service, is the diversity within our workforce.
We must try harder to accommodate and attract members of our community who, until now, may have been unable to come into the public service. They provide a valuable contribution that comes with knowledge which, perhaps, normal, mainstream, public servants with contemporary backgrounds do not have. Those experiences need to be acknowledged and those attributes need to be given recognition, and that is what we are doing with the changes to the Northern Territory Public Service. It is very appropriate and sensible, and when you talk about social justice and social inclusion, this is all about that. In any organisation, whether in the private sector or the public sector, the development of your staff is critical.
That is what the statement is about; looking at ways of developing the staff, how we can best get our own homegrown staff, and how to retain and develop people who come into the lower levels of the public service. It takes a long time to know how the Northern Territory ticks, and the history you gain, whilst working across the Northern Territory in different areas, pays rewards.
You can come here with a university degree but the skills and knowledge you get from working in the field is far more important in some ways. Developing our own, who have that history and experience, so they can move up through the ranks within the public sector is essential. We need to build that knowledge because we need to have a public service which is up to contemporary practices within Australia and internationally. It is about best practice, because increasingly the world is getting smaller and global and national matters are coming closer and the Territory has to operate with various agreements or treaties, or whatever it may be. Climate change is a classic example of that. We need to be up-to-date with what is happening nationally and internationally, and you can only do that through developing your staff. It is an obvious area which the Opposition Leader did not think was very necessary.
We must recognise that, during the various ebbs and flows in the economy, professional and technical staff within our public service are sometimes well-off and at other times, are not. We need to recognise ways of attracting and keeping professional and technical staff because we need them to stay in the public sector. During times of economic boom our infrastructure programs grow and we need those people on board to deliver infrastructure programs - it is being innovative, contemporary, sensible and pragmatic within government to do this.
I cannot accept the allegations the Leader of the Opposition made that public servants do not want this reform, or are unhappy with the PSEMA review. I received many comments and contact with people who were excited and wished to contribute to this review. It has been long time since it was enacted and people want to make it more contemporary and more flexible. The public service is coming on board, despite what the shadow Treasurer and Leader of the Opposition said.
This statement is all about acknowledging the hard work our public servants do and putting on the record, that this government is extremely serious about what they do and supporting them to deliver better outcomes for Territorians. The Leader of the Opposition also alluded to the fact that you should just get on with it, you should not consult with public servants about how to better structure the sector, so they can do their jobs better and deliver outcomes the government requires and provide better services to the community. We take a very different approach. We understand that the people who are involved in service delivery at the coalface, at the front line, need to understand the practices they are involved in and need to understand the sector. We will work with those people, we will listen to them and we will come up with a modern public sector which will deliver better outcomes for Territorians in the long run.
I thank members from this side of the House for their contribution. It was very constructive and positive, and I look forward to further outcomes with the reform. I commend the statement to the House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to, the statement noted.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the Tourism Industry
Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the Tourism Industry
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I received the following letter from the member for Fong Lim:
- Madam Speaker,
I propose for discussion this day the following definite Matter of Public Importance: the impact of the global financial crisis on the Territory tourism industry.
It is signed by the member for Fong Lim.
Is the discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, thank you. This is a definite Matter of Public Importance - the impact of the global financial crisis on the Northern Territory tourism industry, and I am sure all members in this Chamber agree with that. I would be very surprised if there was a member in this Chamber who was not concerned about what the impact of the global financial crisis will be on our Territory tourism industry. I believe that is absolutely, unanimously supported.
It concerns me that we are, at 8.20 pm, left with a mere 40 minutes to debate a matter of clear public importance.
A member: Well, get on with it!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: It is an absolute joke, and I am putting on the record right now my disgust at the way that this parliament has allowed matters of such importance to languish for so long before proper debate.
I hope that the Minister for Tourism gets to speak because I am very interested in his take on how the global financial crisis is affecting, and will effect into the future, our tourism industry.
The tourism industry in the Northern Territory, it goes without saying, is an extraordinarily important industry for the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory, I believe, is the most beautiful place in Australia and indeed, probably the most beautiful place in the world. It is the reason why I live here. The lifestyle is absolutely fantastic. The people are fantastic. The places to see and the things to do in the Northern Territory are fantastic.
Our tourism industry, the people who run tour operations, who show visitors what we have to offer, showcase our incredible Indigenous culture, and our incredible environment, I believe are some of the best operators in the world. They are world-class and I joined with the minister the other day in congratulating those people in the tourism industry, particularly those who won prizes and awards at the Brolga Awards. They are first class people and their businesses are first class, and we desperately need to be supporting them in tough times.
I believe, and I am sure most people would agree, that the global financial crisis will clearly impact on the Northern Territory tourism industry. How it impacts, I suppose, is yet to be seen, but economies around the world are suffering massive declines in what is being called the GFC. We know that one of our strongest sources of visitors, people from Japan, which I believe was announced to be officially in depression today.
That does not bode well for the tourism industry in the Northern Territory that takes on many Japanese visitors. Similarly, the economies of Europe are also experiencing massive difficulties and not just their economies, but the people who are part of those economies, the residents of those countries. If they do not have the disposable income to travel, it will affect our tourism industry in the Northern Territory.
The concern is, that a drop in numbers of international visitors will greatly affect the Northern Territory because they tend to be some of the biggest spenders of the travelling people who come through, particularly the Europeans, the Japanese and the Americans.
We need to consider what the impact will be with a decline in visitor numbers, and we need to consider how the Territory can best counter the decline in those tourism numbers and support the fantastic tour operators we have in the Northern Territory. I heard the minister make a report this morning about tourism and he talked about declines in visitors from the US since 2001. He said that the peak of tourism in the Territory had been in 2001 and, since 11 September, tourist numbers from America had decreased.
Prior to coming in, I managed to dig up the Territory Tourism Outlook brochure that is produced by Tourism NT, the NT Tourism Forecasting Panel, September 2008 edition report and there is a heap of wonderful little graphs of history of tourism, visitors, visitor nights, visitor expenditure and international, national and intrastate visitor figures. Everywhere you go in this document, whether they are US visitors, international, Australian or intrastate visitors, it is interesting that the year 2001 seems to hold some meaning for all the categories of visitors - not just US visitors.
I asked myself what was significant about 2001. Why have we seen a drop in tourist numbers, both international and national and within the Territory since 2001? What was the big event in 2001 that has seen a constant decline in numbers within the tourism industry? Surely, the plans of people intrastate and Territorians travelling in the Territory would not have been massively affected by September 11 2001. Clearly, in my own mind, there is one major event that happened in 2001 …
Ms Carney: Yes, Labor came to office.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, that affected tourism numbers. The member for Araluen has quite rightly hit the nail on the head - there was an election in 2001. We saw tourist numbers increasing under the previous government, and from 2001 onwards, with the election of that government, things have continually decreased: international tourist numbers, international tourist nights, international tourist expenditures, national tourist numbers, national tourist expenditure, national tourist nights, have all declined - and also intrastate - have all declined since 2001.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Quite clearly, the problems being faced, in relation to the global economic and financial crisis, will be compounded by the current methods the government has unless we can do something to turn that around. That is what is most interesting to me: what can we do to turn the decline in tourism around and support the wonderful tour operators in the Northern Territory?
I am not interested in hashing over the past, or in looking back and saying: ‘All these problems have occurred since 2001’. Let us draw a line in the sand right now and look forward. Let us look forward at what can be done into the future to revive and sustain the tourism industry throughout the global financial crisis and, in the longer term, revive it back to the level it was prior to 2001. That is what we really want to do; let us draw a line in the sand and move ahead.
What can be done to assist tourism operators in the Northern Territory? My first suggestion is that we clean up our streets, because drunks in the streets, parks, vagrants, long grassers, whatever you want to call them, are a blight on our society and they are certainly a blight on our tourism industry.
I happened to be talking to a bus driver the other day who works for a big tourist bus company. I was having a chat to him and asked him what tourists talk about when they are on bus trips. He said: ‘inevitably, whether you are leaving Alice Springs, Katherine, or Tennant Creek, the conversations are always the same: why are there so many people on the streets? Why are all these homeless people drunk in the streets? Why are people begging, bumming cigarettes, and humbugging people?’ That is a turn-off for people.
As Territorians, we have become immune to it because it happens so regularly, and I suppose we can understand why these things happen; why we have these sorts of social problems. But from a visitor’s perspective, this is a very confronting issue. It is very confronting when you are driving in Katherine and the traffic island down the main street is full of drunks and layabouts, people swearing, and fighting amongst each other - the violence has to be a turn-off for any visitor from a developed country. This type of behaviour on the streets of Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Nhulunbuy is just vile. It is vile and we should not tolerate it. We should not tolerate it at all. In talking to tourism operators around the place, this is the biggest bugbear – this is what they want to get rid of, they cannot stand the fact that this sort of thing is on our streets.
The other thing we can do is look at the governments support for tourism infrastructure. This morning, the member for Goyder stood up and explained that there has been very little tourism infrastructure put into Katherine, Tennant Creek, or Pine Creek. There has been a complete neglect of those centres. When you look at trying to revive and reinvigorate regional and remote centres within the Northern Territory, one of the key areas people should be looking at is the tourism industry, because there are spectacular places in those areas. People want to see those places. I have been here for 21 years and it was only a few months ago that I went to Elliott with a good friend of mine. We took our swags and whatnot and I said: ‘Where are we going to camp?’ He said: ‘We will nick into Lake Woods’. I had never heard of Lake Woods. I thought I had been around a bit and …
Ms Carney: I have been to Lake Woods.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sure many people have been to Lake Woods, but I had not been to Lake Woods, and it was a surprisingly beautiful place. I pay credit to the previous Tourism minister, because I know he was doing a bit at Lake Woods. There are a swag of places like that in the Northern Territory, where we could be putting a little progress, where we could create some experiences for people from interstate, overseas and from within the Territory to enjoy.
Marketing campaigns - I know we jumped on the back of Australia, the movie. I do not think the opposition wants to criticise that in any way. I do not know whether it has paid dividends, but it was certainly an opportunity and it was something the government did to market the Northern Territory in conjunction with that movie. But there are a whole range of other areas the Northern Territory government should be looking at.
I suggest, particularly at this point in time, encouraging Territorians to stay in the Territory, to get around the Territory, to have a look at the Territory themselves. These are our tourism businesses. As a parochial person - a person who loves the Territory - now is the time to be thinking about visiting within the Territory and not going on overseas or interstate holidays. Running a good marketing campaign aimed at Territorians, informing them that now, more than ever, the local Territory tourism businesses need our support. Marketing within Australia, I believe, cannot go astray.
The Northern Territory government needs to do more to attract interstate visitors to the Territory. That is how we can go forward. Talking to tourism operators from all centres, the single most pressing issue is cleaning up our streets. This is not solely an issue for tourism; this is an issue for all Territory businesses and all Territorians. Territorians despise the way our streets look. It is not on. The government has an obligation to get in there and do something about cleaning up the streets. My wife cannot go to the shops after 7 pm because she is scared to walk up the street. When the kids were younger we could not take them to the park and use the swings because the park had been taken over by drunken itinerants.
A couple of years ago I was out at Moulden talking to people at a crime forum, asking what their concerns were, and they said: ‘Right here, in this particular park, by 2 pm it is full of drunk people, absolutely off their trees, screaming, fighting, and swearing. The school, which finishes at 2.30 pm, and the school kids come out and 70% of those school kids are not picked up by their parents at the school, they walk through that park’. Every single afternoon 70% of those kids from that school had to walk through that park teeming with drunken itinerants. That is appalling. We need to do more to clean up our streets.
Our tourism operators demand it, our businesses demand it, and Territorians demand it. While that situation exists, we, as legislators in this place, should hang our heads in shame. That is a situation that has gone on for far too long. It preceded this government, I am not laying blame completely at this government, but the fact is, it is incumbent on government to fix the problem, to get out there and sort it out.
I am aware that there are other people who want to speak on this Matter of Public Importance. I did have a few other things to say, but sadly the processes in this joint leaves much to be desired. I am very keen to hear the Tourism minister speak, so I will end my comments now. But there is one thing that I want to leave the tourism industry with: clean up our streets.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim for this Matter of Public Importance. Tourism is vital to the Northern Territory, it contributes 6.4% to the Gross State Product, compared to 3.7% for the rest of Australia; and tourism in the Northern Territory is estimated to be worth $1.6bn, in terms of total visitor expenditure, and employs over 17 000 Territorians.
I am not sure whether the member for Fong Lim has had a recent briefing on the history of tourism numbers, particularly since 2001, it is not the doom and gloom that he paints it …
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Overall, there has been growth, as I understand it, in our tourism numbers …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I acknowledge and note that the numbers of overseas tourists have decreased since 2001, and we know the reasons for that. I commend Tourism NT, the Advisory Board, all the employees, and the operators, in particular, who have worked so hard and put the tourism industry in the Northern Territory in a much stronger position than it was in 2001. I believe everyone acknowledges that the industry is actually in a much stronger position and more confident in riding through the tough times that are ahead. There has been a shake out in the industry since 2001, and we are prepared for tough times ahead. As I outlined, I believe our preparations and strategies are sound.
Looking at direct jobs, tourism provided 9.5% of total employment in 2006-07, compared to 7.1% by construction, and only 2.9% by the mining industry. The Northern Territory is more reliant on the tourism industry than any other jurisdiction in Australia. Tourism contributes in some way to all industries in the Territory economy; therefore all the industries are reliant on tourism demand to some extent, especially accommodation, restaurants, pubs and cafes, taxis, hire cars, tour companies, the retail sector and more. That background demonstrates the importance of a strong tourism industry to a strong Northern Territory economy.
The recently announced federal government $42bn stimulus package is very important in supporting the tourism industry in the tough times ahead. It is about keeping Territorians in jobs, and the Australian government’s $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan contains a number of proposals which will directly benefit tourism operators. These include the $2.7bn temporary business tax break, an additional 30% tax deduction for eligible assets, such as computers, and further cash claims of up to $900 for eligible families and workers who, hopefully, as the member for Fong Lim said, will take holidays in the Territory; along with the pre-Christmas $10.4bn economic security package. These boost the discretionary income and will place more dollars in the pockets of Australian consumers; they are the people we are aiming at.
2009-10 will be challenging for the local tourism industry. This is not a situation caused by the industry, a lack of investment by the Northern Territory government, or by any individual or company in Australia; this situation, which will impact everyone across the globe, has been caused by regulatory and policy failures and a culture of greed, primarily arising in the United States.
Whilst the Northern Territory and Australia are not immune to the impacts of the global economic crisis, I believe we are better placed to weather them than many other developed economies. I believe, given our economic fundamentals, it means that Australia’s discretionary spending and spending on tourism is likely to remain higher than in other markets.
The travel market will weaken throughout 2008 and the outlook for tourism over the next few years is poor, there is no doubt about it. Official forecasts for Australian tourism, released by Tourism Research Australia late last year, suggested a 4% decline in international arrivals to Australia, overall, during 2009, and a 0.9% decline in domestic travel. Tourism NTs view is that these forecasts are optimistic, given the continued deterioration and key economic data since the release, and actual arrivals in the year ending September 2008 were already lower than the forecast for the calendar year.
The impact of September 11, the Ansett collapse and SARS on the tourism industry had a flow-on effect on jobs and, I believe, we are better placed this time for the challenges ahead. It was during this time, that I mentioned this government provided an extra $27.5m over three years to Tourism NT, and this has resulted in significant improvements over the past few years. It was also this government that increased Tourism NT’s annual base funding by $10m on a permanent basis.
What we are doing? Tourism NT has developed Global Watch NT on its website as a key resource and reference point for Northern Territory tourism operators to assess and monitor global economic conditions. It provides a summary of current market intelligence, opportunities for operators to consider, upcoming activities, and media articles which may be of interest.
We believe that there has been a shift in what tourists want; they want good value tourism products and that is what we are encouraging industry to provide. This approach has been implemented in the domestic Get CeNTred marketing campaign, which commenced on 7 February and runs into March and April. The total campaign investment for this is $2.2m, consisting of $1.7m of Northern Territory government funds and $500000 of partner funds. We have a solid strategic plan for the tourism industry, which puts us in a good position to face the tough times. We have a five-year plan. The former minister released the second one last year and it provides, I believe, a very good framework for the way forward for our tourism industry.
Last week at the convention centre, I launched the Beyond 2009 online marketing forum in Darwin. Over 200 operators attended and they were looking to build their …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Please pause, minister. Opposition members, if you wish to have a private conversation would you please do so outside the Chamber. I am unable to hear the minister.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the concern is that we have such a lack of time, and the minister is clearly reading a prepared speech, which is fine, but he could do the House a favour and table the speech …
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: … and other people would get a chance to have their say. I am very interested to hear what the minister has to say and I promise I will read his speech …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. The minister has the call. Please continue, minister.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I attended this particular meeting, along with 200 operators and heard the guest speaker, Mr Bernard Salt talk about trends in marketing, what is required, the changing demography, and the changing demands within the tourism marketplace. This forum was well attended and well received by industry, not only in Darwin but also in Alice Springs.
The Centralian Advocate, on 17 February, reported Bernard Salt, in his offering in Alice Springs, saying: ‘Tourism NT is doing all the right things to weather the storm of the global financial crisis’. Bernard works for KPMG, who is a renowned and acclaimed author on demographic trends, marketing, and online marketing. I believe this was a very good forum for operators, and there was much interest.
Today, I met with Mr Grant Hunt who is very well known in the tourism industry, is the former Chairman of Voyages and is now running his own tourism industry. He is Chair of the Tourism Advisory Board and he is also on the Board of Australian Tourism. He advised me that he believes 2009 will be a challenging year, but that it is domestic tourism which will provide the opportunities ahead because of the lower value of the Australian dollar. His advice is that we should be putting resources, in a flexible way, against our domestic tourism marketing to attract those people who otherwise would have travelled overseas. That is exactly what is happening.
I will be meeting with the advisory board on Friday, and I am looking forward to that. I am also going to Alice Springs next week and I will be meeting with tourism leaders there. I will listen to what tourism operators and tourism leaders tell me. This government will provide a flexible and substantial response to support the tourism industry during this global crisis.
There is a lot of regional activity going on and regional areas such as Katherine and Tennant Creek may do quite well next year. They rely on the domestic, self-drive market. We have set aside $400 000 for the drive market and fishing activity in March and April 2009.
The NT Muster is another important activity. It travels to four states and incorporates four trade events. Thirty-nine NT operators will be attending the NT Muster and they will be meeting with many operators, retail agents, inbound operators, product managers, and key trade media contacts; so that is a very important venue.
The Global Kakadu Campaign is a mighty focus and there is much activity in London around the National Geographic shop and its retail store in Regent Street; a lot of billboard activity. We believe that, given conditions worldwide and although the UK is suffering severely as a result of the financial crisis, we can target that market. There is expected to be an increase in aviation capacity this year on the Kangaroo Route of around 8%, fuel prices and surcharges are dropping and passenger loads on aircraft will be under pressure at the regular airline ticket prices,. We believe there is capacity and potential within the UK market. There is an expectation that ticket prices may drop between 20% - 30% this year.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Dr BURNS: This is all relevant, member for Fong Lim. This is important.
This is important information from Mr Grant Hunt, who is well known in the tourism industry, who analyses these sorts of things. He is very experienced and I will listen to Grant Hunt before I listen to you, member for Fong Lim.
There is activity in Alice Springs around Indigenous tourism workshops, which are very important because many people who come to the Northern Territory want to experience Indigenous culture. This is something that market intelligence shows us, that people, Australians as well as international tourists, want to have that experience; and there are more products being developed, both in Alice Springs and the Top End, to enable that to occur.
Territory Discoveries is also seeing increases in terms of inquiries to its website. It had over $30 000 in bookings and inquiries, from click to chat, and another $200 000 in e-mail bookings and inquiries in the month of January 2009. Territory Discoveries is working well.
In summary, yes, we are heading into tough times, but I believe the work of Tourism NT, with the advice of its advisory board, is setting us in the right direction, with the right sort of strategies and a flexible approach, and government will continue to support the tourism industry. As the incoming Tourism Minister, I am keen to meet industry, both in Darwin and Alice Springs, at the earliest opportunity.
I commend the Member for Fong Lim for bringing this matter before the House. I believe I have demonstrated, despite the scoffing from the Member for Fong Lim, that the government is very active, we do have strategies in place, which are well thought out and will be effective strategies to cushion the Northern Territory tourism industry against the global economic downturn.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I am going to start this …
Ms Carney: All you have is five minutes, Pete.
Mr CHANDLER: I have much to cover. I start with a quote from the Chief Minister. It is taken from the draft Northern Territory Parks and Conservation Framework and it is a good statement. From time to time we kick the Chief Minister around, and we affectionately refer to him as Big Bird, but here we go:
- Territorians love the outdoors and, possibly more than in any other part of the world, the natural environment is an integral part of our life.
Territorians participate in a modern economy but live within a vast wild landscape. Our woodlands, savannah grasslands, floodplains and billabongs,
paperbark forests, wild rivers and desert mountain ranges are integral to our lives. These landscapes provide us with many things: a sense of place,
inspiration and enjoyment, recreation, sustenance and economic opportunity. They connect us with nature and remind us that in essence we belong
to the land – the land does not belong to us.
- We need to provide quality recreational and educational experiences for visitors and tourists …
You have my vote, it continues:
- …present the public with a wider range of recreational/tourism opportunities both within parks and reserves and beyond.
In recognition of the rapidly increasing numbers of self-drive tourists, attention is focused on developing facilities in those parks and reserves along the
various tourism loops and routes, and on improving infrastructure within the Territory’s high profile parks.
I quoted this because I listened to the ABC Press Club today, where Australian of The Year, Mick Dodson, referred to the ‘poisonous habit of political spin’, and he referred to all governments in the country having this. It is a wonderful statement: ‘poisonous habit of political spin’. He spoke about symbolic and then practical and meaningful processes and programs, and his suggestion that symbolic recognition was near enough to useless and a ‘poisonous habit of political spin’. I do not want this, like so many things we have from this government, which come into our mailboxes on nearly a weekly basis, where we have many glossy brochures, which I am now going to affectionately refer to as ‘poisonous habits of political spin’.
I have taken this from ABC Online today, where the Queensland tourism minister - and I want to paint a picture here - Desley Boyle, says Virgin’s decision to downsize will have a greater impact on its staff than the travel sector. However, the company says it will ground five planes and could cut up to 400 jobs because of the economic downturn. Will that have a flow-on effect to the Territory? I believe it may. The Queensland Tourism Council said today that the airlines decision to cut jobs and reduce services is a sign of the times.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this member from concluding his remarks. Not a suspension of time; a suspension of standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that suspension of standing orders be agreed to.
The Assembly divided
- Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Tollner Mr McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms McCarthy
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it now being 9 pm, pursuant to Standing Order 41, the item of business before the Chair is completed. The Assembly does now adjourn.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk recently about what people are wearing in this Chamber, particularly the compulsory dress code of the opposition to wear suits. I thought it would be interesting to take a look back at the history of this topic. I have been up to the old Cabinet room upstairs and looked at some photos of every Cabinet since 1978. The first portrait …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You might learn something, because none of you have been Cabinet minsters. The first portrait includes the Executive of the Letts government, including a very young Paul Everingham, and most of the Executive were proudly sporting shorts, long socks and short sleeved shirts. Further along the wall there is a photo of Marshall Perron in a leather jacket with a T-shirt evident underneath. I believe the best CLP Chief Minister since self-government would not qualify for a place opposite because he would not come up to your dress code. The only suit, in 27 years of CLP government, was Shane Stone in a khaki safari jacket.
There is an old Territory saying: only wear a suit at a funeral, usually as the deceased, or in court, usually as the defendant. The member for Goyder called the Chief Minister a scrubber because he does not wear a suit. Based on the reasoning of the member for Goyder, there are more CLP scrubbers in the Cabinet photos to fill a live cattle export ship in Darwin Harbour. Indeed, the former CLP chief ministers were not only wearing suits, but also ties.
I would like to just read from this memo written by the then Chief Minister, Dennis Burke, dated 18 February 2000, nine years ago to the day. He says, it is brief, I will read it:
- I am becoming increasingly aware that ties are being worn particularly within the senior management of the Public Service as a normal day –to-day attire.
It would be disappointing to me if public servants generally felt constrained in their dress by this trend.
From time to time, on more formal occasions, a tie is appropriate, but this should be seen as the exception rather than the rule. On these occasions I view a Batik or Barong as equally appropriate.
Please convey this to your staff.
Signed Denis Burke.
I will table that. Nonetheless, we are aware that Territory rig: a shirt, tie and slacks is the dress code in this Assembly, however, suits are not compulsory, at least not on this side of the House. While suits were never part of the CLP, they are square and centre the uniform of the new Country Liberals. That extension of the Canberra Liberal spin doctors and the North Shore bankers, have made the CLP their branch office…
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I do not mind if the spivs on the other side want to wear suits, I believe it is indicative of a much bigger problem – the wholesale sell-out of the CLP to the Liberals. I might not agree with a lot of things the old CLP used to do, but they used to stand up for Territorians and they were steadfast in that regard, but no more. The CLP’s opposition to the Northern Territory’s $500m share of the stimulus package was a disgrace. It was all for the sake of keeping on the side of a former merchant banker, Malcolm Turnbull. You sold out the Territory. You are a bunch of sell-outs in suits.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I note that the minister just read out that attack, and I am grateful that he did not actually try to wing his way through it because, of course, he would have bumbled his way through. I find it fascinating that this government would stop the business of the House, and stop members talking about the challenges facing the tourism industry, to have some sort of half-arsed crap at the decision of the CLP to wear …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that the four-letter word beginning with ‘c’ and ending with ‘p’, which the member for Port Darwin used, is probably unparliamentarily. I ask him to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I ask you to withdraw please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it. I am fascinated that they would rather engage in this level of political debate when we are trying to stand up and fight for the tourism industry of the Northern Territory. There was much to come from this side of the House on that issue. Tourism operators are worried about what is going on with tourism.
We sought a 10-minute suspension of standing orders, and they refused because they are worried about what we wear. How childish can you possibly become? The hubris of the CLP, which they railed against when they were in opposition, has become their mantle, and they wear it with pride and with a much greater shame than I would ever wear a suit with. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Tourism minister of the Northern Territory would seek not to talk about tourism and, instead, talk about the dress codes of this House.
I do not mind what people wear into this Chamber. We took a decision, by ourselves, to wear suits into this House - and that is it. So what? The tourism operators in this jurisdiction will be fascinated to hear that they have had their important issue silenced and gagged by this government so that they can whinge about the fact that we decided to wear a couple of suits. Big fluffy deal! The arrogance that goes with this, and the abuse of the rights of tourism operators, for the sake of your amusement, is a disgrace.
They should be ashamed of themselves - absolutely ashamed of themselves. Whilst the members opposite sit there and think: ‘Well, this is going to be a nice little trap’, the fact is, okay a trap - big deal, great achievement. How does this protect the tourism operators? I ask the members from Alice Springs on that side of the House: how does this protect your tourism operators?
When was the last time Centre Tours approached the Minister for Central Australia and said: ‘What are the CLP wearing in the Chamber? I am so concerned about that’. When was the last time they approached and asked that question of members from Alice Springs? When was the last time Grant Hunt said to the Minister for Tourism: ‘What are the CLP wearing in the House? Are they wearing the North Shore suits or what?’
For the minister to come in and do what he just did demonstrates how far out of touch they are with what is going on outside this Chamber. If they are so concerned about what we wear in this place, and …
Mr Conlan: I tell you what, you belong - what is the name of the street in Kings Cross?
Mr Henderson: You used to stand up for the Territory, you guys, you do not anymore.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjecting from the Chief Minister. Standing up for the Territory means standing up for tourism operators, not walking in here and using this place, as the little trumped up tyrant that you are becoming, to beat your chest over your own class resentments about whether or not people wear suits.
Mr Henderson: Class resentments?
Mr ELFERINK: Old, traditional class resentment came out of your mouth the other day; your resentment of the people of the North Shore demonstrates that your eye is completely off the ball, sunshine. I am a Territorian and I am proud of it. I have lived here all my life, bar three years, and I can tell you I will continue wearing whatever I like, in spite of what you think. I will also continue standing up for the rights of tourism operators and other businessmen in this town, rather than running the stupid, tripey little games that you guys consider as part of your duty.
If you cannot see beyond this room, then your short-sightedness will condemn you at the next Territory election.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, there speaks the member for Port Darwin, who is definitely more Liberal than Country, and we see that today. The Liberal Party has moved into the opposition benches. They are all more Liberal than Country.
As Minister for Education and Training, I pay tribute to the achievements of Group Training Northern Territory which, this year, celebrates 20 years of operation. I take a moment to reflect on their notable and worthy history. In 1988, Street Ryan undertook a feasibility study to establish group training companies for the Territory. As a result, the not-for-profit training company was born in 1989, with the sole aim of increasing the numbers of apprentices in the Top End of the Northern Territory. At the same time, other group training companies were being established in other parts of Australia. A steering committee was put in place to oversight the establishment, with support from the NT Chamber of Commerce, Unions NT, and the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments.
In the beginning, Top End Group Training had seven apprentices and one staff member. The initial board was started with a $5000 grant and operated out of a small dog-box of an office in the old Mirambeena Resort. The first board members, who most of us know and have had dealings with many of them, were Peter Tullgren, Hugh Crawford, Frank Giavarra, Geoff Raddatz, Dagmar Brautigam, the late Peter Brown, Mick McInerney, Heather Prendergast, and Gus Cattenach The early years, like any new enterprise, were tough, with many long hours and hard work by staff and the board.
In the early 1990s, it opened a part-time office in Katherine, with a focus on pastoral trainees, and by the mid-1990s, the organisation had grown to 110 apprentices, 12 staff - an amazing achievement.
Group Training has chalked up some remarkable milestones over the past 20 years. In 1999, they won the contract for the new Apprenticeship Support Service and developed the only joint arrangement between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in Australia. In the same year, the Central Australian Group Training Company went into liquidation, and the company took over the apprentices, and officially commenced its Central Australian operation. It also opened its first East Arm office to service the apprentices at the Nabalco operation, and officially became known as Group Training NT.
In 2002, its founding CEO, Jenny Belfield resigned, and she was replaced by the enigmatic Mike Harrison, as her replacement on the board. In 2005, Mick McInerney, a foundation board member, resigned as chairman, with local identity, Peter Carew taking over this important role. In 2005, Burridj Group Training collapsed and, as in the Centre, Group Training took on all the local apprentices and reopened an office in Katherine.
Twenty years later, Group Training NT now employs 88 staff with a turnover in excess of $20m a year. It has successful operations in Darwin, Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Alice Springs. It has apprentices and trainees in over 30 communities, four business divisions, 26 major contracts, including many in remote communities, and around 600 apprentices.
It is important that I pay tribute to some important people who have played a big part in the genesis of Group Training. Mr Mick McInerney, chair of the board for 17 years, was granted life membership of Group Training in 2007; Ms Jenny Belfield, the initial manager and CEO, under her 13 year stewardship the organisation grew when so many others failed; Ms Dagmar Brautigam, founding and current director, was recognised for her outstanding service by Group Training Qld/NT in 2005; Mr Brian Hilder, a board member for over 14 years; Mr Don Zoellner, a board member and deputy chair for 12 years; Mr Paul McConnell, 12 years of loyal service; Mr Antony Yoffa, Central Australian manager for 10 years; Mr Peter Carew, current chair of the board, who has provided great leadership for the last five years; and last, but by no means least, Mr Mike Harrison, the current CEO. Mike has continued to grow and strengthen the organisation to its current level. He is also overseeing the commencement of the Group Training Foundation, which provides programs to encourage increased training and participation.
It is also important to mention that late last year Group Training NT won the Training Initiative Award at the 53rd Annual Northern Territory Training Awards, and went on to be announced as winners of the same category at the Australian Training Awards, which were held in Darwin.
Group Training NT is a fantastic Territory success story. It has been an integral part of growing our local workforce and giving Territorians opportunities for employment and training.
I know that everyone here will join me in congratulating them on their 20 years of achievement and wish them well for the next 20 years.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, in the short time I have, I put on the Hansard of the Northern Territory parliament my thanks to a group in Alice Springs called the Responsible Drinkers Lobby of Alice Springs. I do not know all the members of this group, and as far as I can tell, it is an independent group of citizens in Alice Springs.
I know one of its members, however, and that is Alderman Liz Martin, a woman well known to everyone in Alice Springs. Liz undertook an extensive study about alcohol-related issues in Alice Springs and compiled her findings and delivered her report in January. She delivered this report to government ministers and to the Chief Minister’s office in Alice Springs, and local Country Liberals members were provided with a copy as well. It is fitting, I believe, that on the eve of what I am hoping will be a series of really good announcements for Alice Springs, to address a number of issues and to make Alice Springs an even better place, that I refer to the responsible drinkers report compiled by Liz Martin called Enough is Enough: This is What People Think. It was a survey undertaken with a view to getting people’s views on a range of alcohol issues in Alice Springs. It is appropriate and I am quoting from the report, the vision of the Responsible Drinkers Lobby as follows:
- The Responsible Drinkers Lobby vision is for Alice Springs to be a community where its law abiding residents are able to enjoy the same reasonable
and unrestricted access to alcohol as other Australians while accountability, intensive support and long-term care is also provided to those in the
community who are adversely impacted by alcohol misuse and abuse.
I do not have time to go into all of the findings but I will touch upon some of the recommendations. The report, which I am sure most members of government have, outlines the details of how the survey was made, where it went, the questions asked and so on. That information is contained in the report. There are a series of recommendations; indeed, there are a great many of them. I do not have time to go into the detail of each one but, on the eve of what I am hoping will be a series of positive announcements for Alice Springs tomorrow, it is important to put these on the record.
One of the recommendations was an overnight accommodative care centre for youth and children in Alice Springs. That is something worthy of consideration; it is something we discussed at our bipartisan meeting. I am hopeful the government will make an announcement in that regard. I am certain members of government have read this particular recommendation from the report.
Another recommendation the report addressed was a long-term care facility for recidivist drinkers who are beyond rehabilitation - a complex matter - but the prospect of a care facility for such people is worthy of consideration by government.
The report also recommended that the government, in association with the federal government, open a fully-integrated alcohol rehabilitation facility in Alice Springs, with mandatory attendance for third time offenders and access for voluntary admission.
We have talked about alcohol courts in this place, both in this term and the previous one. Both parties disagree on the success of the alcohol courts, but it is fair to say that there is some level of agreement in relation to addressing alcohol issues and providing an extensive rehabilitation service. At least I am hopeful that the government is coming a little more our way in terms of providing such a facility. No doubt in my view, and the view of others, that such a facility is needed in Alice Springs.
In the 55 seconds I have left, I will talk about the recommendation of reviewing and refining the alcohol court. And also the recommendation of a 24-hour manned police kiosk or presence in the CBD Todd Mall area; an eminently sensible recommendation.
Another recommendation is that the government allow takeaway liquor outlets to be open from 10 am to 10 pm. Coincidentally, that is in accordance with Country Liberals’ policy announced late last year. We believe it is worth pursing the idea; let us get it out in the open during the day, instead of at night when it presents problems for the community, the police and those committing crimes as a result of alcohol.
This is ridiculous - five minutes we have been given for these speeches. I wish the government would change its ways because how can anyone make an adjournment in five minutes on matters of such importance? This is bullshit.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I remember the life of a fine Territorian, Father John Leary AM MSC, who died on Saturday 10 January in Sydney. I am very grateful to Father Malcolm Fyfe MSC, the Superior of the Sacred Heart in the Territory, for providing me with notes for this eulogy tonight.
- Father John Leary was called to eternal life early on Saturday January 10. He had been holidaying at our Monastery in Kensington, New South Wales
but on the Friday evening experienced some chest pain and was taken to hospital. The doctors decided on a surgical procedure, but after they began,
they found that Fr John was beyond medical help.
Father Roy O’Neill, Missionary of the Sacred Heart and one of the Hospital Chaplains at the Prince of Wales, was called to give John the Sacrament of
Final Anointing. He told me that Father John, though unable to talk, was still conscious and very calm as he listened to the prayers.
While Father was still on the ventilator, his heart simply stopped beating a short time later. Father Roy O’Neill who has witnessed many deaths in his
role as Chaplain told me it was one of the most peaceful deaths he had ever witnessed.
But in spite of Father Johns’ age and increasing frailty, the news of his death came as a shock to us - except Brother John Pye. When I said to him that
the news of Father John’s death had come as a surprise, in his wry philosophical way the 102-year-old replied: ‘Well we’ve all got to die sometime!’
Father John was 86 years of age: he lived 55 of those years in the Northern Territory.
John Peter Leary was born in Dubbo, New South Wales in 1922. His family farmed wheat and sheep and his father also bred and trained race horses.
John liked to recount that because he was a lightly built boy, his dad had hoped he would become a jockey.
When young John was about 10 years old the family moved to Randwick in Sydney, where Missionaries of the Sacred Heart were in charge of Our Lady
of the Sacred Heart parish. As a young secondary student, he decided he wanted to join them. On completion of his Novitiate year, John took his first
vows as a Missionary of the Sacred Heart when he was 20 years of age. Six-and-a-half years later, in 1949, he was ordained a priest.
In those days of seminary training, one of the forms of recreation was the bushwalk in the hill country around Croydon, the famous Dandenong Ranges
in the outer suburbs of Melbourne.
John used to say later that these bushwalks prepared him for handling the much more vast landscape of the Northern Territory and proved a useful
introduction to his future years living alongside traditional Aborigines. He also admitted that one of his ways of dealing with troublesome issues
associated with his ministry in remote areas was to disappear for a time and gain some thinking space. He said this had earned him the title of ‘Father Walkabout’.
Father Leary arrived in the Top End in January 1953 and for the next 55 years he lived, worked and ultimately retired in the diocese of Darwin. In that time
he became one of the most loved and admired of all those who had worked with the Aboriginal people of Melville Island, Bathurst Island, Port Keats and
Daly River. His work with the Indigenous people of the Top End would ultimately be recognised with the award of the Order of Australia Medal at the turn
of the millennium. The citation would read: ‘For service to the spiritual, educational and health needs of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory,
as a priest and missionary of the Catholic Church’.
On arriving in Darwin, Father John was appointed Priest in charge of Our Lady of Victories Mission on Melville Island. For some time, it had been government
policy that all mixed race children be rounded up from the camps and sent to such mission establishments to be educated.
Father John retained the happiest recollections of his two-and-a-half years with the Garden Pointers. Looking back on this period, he credited the young people
of Aboriginal descent at Garden Point with helping him in their own unique way to be at home with traditional Aborigines. They were the link between the white
world of his previous experience and what would become his life’s work with the Indigenous people of the Top End.
At Garden Point, Father Leary’s chief task, as he saw it, was to be a father figure to the children who were missing such a figure in their lives. He found working with
the Garden Point people very satisfying and their love and respect for him has continued unabated.
Father Leary left Garden Point in March 1955 and went to the Daly River to start the new mission there. His task was primarily that of setting up the mission, getting
to know the people and winning their confidence.
This initiative at the Daly River was a result of an approach made to the Northern Territory Administrator and to Bishop O’Loughlin a couple of years earlier, by Joe
and Bill Parry and some others from the area, asking for a school, for dormitories for the schoolchildren, for a health clinic and a church. Most of the Indigenous
people in the area were employed by and lived on the surrounding cattle stations. They wanted their children to be educated and grow up healthy.
The Daly area had long been settled by families such as the Dargies, the Parrys and many others who managed a living alongside the traditional people of the region.
These settlers also formed part of the Daly River community. For John Leary, the Sisters and the Brothers who worked alongside him, these early years at the Daly
were enormously challenging and arduous.
I will complete this tomorrow night.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker I wish to enlighten the House that, from figures that have come to hand, to date Clubs NT has raised over $200 000 in its efforts for the Victorian Bushfires Appeal. That is an absolutely amazing figure.
Further to that, shortly before lunch today, Mix 104.9 Radio House, had exceeded $400 000 for the bushfire appeal. These are the fantastic donations from the Northern Territory people on the northern edge of this great Territory. It is very heart-warming to think that people’s generosity reached deep, not only into their pockets but into their hearts and their souls, to support those who are in a position where they cannot support themselves properly anymore.
I am very proud of schools that have also done their bit. The students have chipped in their pocket money, or however they raised their money; many schools had fundraising days where they have exceeded thousands of dollars per school. It is amazing that, off their own back, the children of the Territory - the future of the Territory - have shown such great leadership and compassion to those less fortunate than themselves.
I go now to New Zealand, to my own daughter’s school. My daughter, Jasmine Emily Bohlin, is eight and she was proudly telling me with great enjoyment and anticipation that this Friday her primary school in Auckland, Meadowbank Primary School, will be doing a mufti day, where the kids can donate an amount of money and can wear whatever clothes they like. I am very proud of my daughter showing her Aussie spirit in another country, and I am very proud of her school; that they can reach out across the sea to help the people of Australia.
It has affected many people, and around the world people are showing great compassion. It really is heartfelt for me, and if we could only express that to the people in need on the ground, so they know that everywhere in Australia they are supported. Unfortunately, we now have other disasters happening throughout Australia with floods in New South Wales, the ongoing and extensive floods in the outer reaches of the Northern Territory and into Queensland, where communities in Queensland have been isolated for many weeks already and look to be isolated for another six weeks from the last report, if memory serves me rightly.
Although the focus is on Victoria, the people of Queensland and other areas are not forgotten, and their isolation will be remembered in the future. I hope they can hold on and get everything they need to be able to rebuild their lives throughout the eastern side of Australia.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is an unfortunate time and tonight highlights the reasons why we have to change the five-minute adjournment. I knew Father Leary. I knew him very well. To have a eulogy cut off, because there is not enough time, is a disgrace. I appreciate Madam Speaker reading the eulogy. She did it with great understanding of a very important person, a pioneer in the Territory, someone who many people loved and someone I have a close affection for.
This is a classic example of why this system is silly. We really have to review it. And on the other side of it, we cut off the debate on tourism because we now have this ridiculous idea of finishing at 9 pm. 9 pm? It is now 9.20 pm. I mean, big deal! What is wrong with going until 11 pm? I know some people want to go home, and it does help some of the staff, but we only sit for a few days a year, basically. Let us use that time well. It is an important debate and I am going to use some of that time in a minute, because that is about all I have left, to talk about tourism.
I make a note - but also I do not want to make my few minutes overly negative – that the Chief Minister, during his adjournment debate, was talking about awards in schools, and it reminded me, when I picked up the paper this morning, that I found the Northern Territory Board of Studies Students Awards. I did not even know that was on. For many years the government has given members of parliament an invitation to those awards. They are not political awards and they have always given me a chance to meet families from my area, or people I have known, and to congratulate those young people who have achieved things.
This is one of the first times I have seen Taminmin High School mentioned. The Taminmin High School Award for Australian Computer Society Information, Processing and Publishing went to Lan Nguyen of Taminmin High School. I had no opportunity to see him. I know Christopher Miler because I know the Miler family from Daly River; he also plays, I believe, football for Southern Districts. He is studying at Kormilda College and he received a Certificate of Merit. I had no opportunity to go and say congratulations - what a fantastic achievement for a young bloke from out bush.
I ask the government: why it has not given invitations to members? I did not get an invitation and I asked others if they got invitations. Why did we not get invitations to something that was common practice, even courtesy, so we could all, as a group of parliamentarians, congratulate our young people? It is not all about politics, surely. Going to the Northern Territory Board of Studies Student Awards is beyond politics, but that is the impression one gets, and I am very disappointed. I hope the Chief Minister can answer that tomorrow sometime, because I think it is something that needs changing.
My one and half or two minutes left are about tourism. I will try to summarise it and prcis it. Basically, I was going to put in a contribution which said: there is local tourism; there is on-the-ground tourism which will be affected by these changes. In my area, we have things like Windows on the Wetlands; Djukbinj; the Territory Wildlife Park; Litchfield National Park; the Jumping Crocodile - we have a whole range of great tourist attractions. They attract people to the rural area, people passing through the rural area stop to get a drink, fill up with fuel; they are the things we also have to remember. Not everything is about the big picture.
I wanted to look at how it affects local employment, local industries, and I wanted to see whether we could work out ways of encouraging people - in these times when international visitors are dropping off - from interstate, to make sure the downturn in tourism does not affect employment, especially in my area, to any great extent. That is what I wanted to debate.
I believe the system is not the right system. I say to members of the parliament, please consider changing this, because I do not think it is a good way to show what parliament is about to people in the Northern Territory.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak about an interstate trip I took late last year, as it appears to be a topical subject at the moment. My journey started last year while visiting the proposed Arafura Resources’ Nolan’s Bore rare earths mine site north of Alice Springs. That research visit revealed the possibility of an ore processing plant being constructed, in South Australia or Darwin, and with that processing plant, an Incitec Pivot chemical plant. Hearing that, I immediately wanted to know more about the program, how it operated, and what associated risks were involved, particularly from an environmental perspective.
On returning to Darwin, I began an investigation which culminated in an opportunity to visit the Incitec Pivot sulphuric acid plant in Mount Isa, Queensland. The reason this particular plant was chosen was because of its close proximity to a major urban area. The plant was similar to one that would be constructed in Darwin should the company choose Darwin over South Australia. The visit to the plant was extremely eye opening. In Mount Isa’s case, the plant has had a substantial and positive impact on the air quality, removing dust and dangerous chemicals which would otherwise go straight up the stack at the neighbouring mine.
The Incitec Pivot plant pipes waste from the mine smelters and removes dust and chemical residue processing sulphuric acid. As I have already said, these chemicals would otherwise be released into the atmosphere over Mount Isa, so the plant provides a real benefit by converting or using waste to produce a by-product, at the same time improving the air quality for the residents of Mount Isa. My interest focused around environmental issues including safety measures and systematic programs, including redundancy systems. The bottom line is: should a similar plant ever be constructed in or near Darwin, I wanted to know the full impact of such a development.
This trip was invaluable and the information will greatly improve my understanding of this particular area. I also thank Incitec Pivot management for providing me with the opportunity, and also for their openness when it came to answering my many lay person-style questions.
It has become quite evident in the last few days that, unlike government ministers, any trip undertaken by a shadow minister appears to face public scrutiny. When planning this trip, I deliberately set out to value-add by visiting a number of areas focusing on my portfolio responsibilities. Perhaps, in hindsight, this was my mistake, if only for the perception it created. However, I stand by my decision, as the additional experience of visiting south-east Queensland, to better understand the major water resources issues - visiting Hinz Dam and spending time with the CEO, and Mr Cameron Kerr, the General Manager of Life Sciences and Environment Education at Taronga Park Zoo in Sydney, before returning to Darwin - was both invaluable and thought provoking. Apparently, paying for and taking my family on part of that research journey was my undoing.
There is a strong link both professionally and personally between the Alice Springs Desert Park and Taronga Park Zoo with Gary Fry, the manager of the Alice Springs Desert Park, having completed his training at Taronga. The Taronga Park Zoo, and its larger annexe in Dubbo, the Western Plains Zoo, have many synergies with our own Desert Park. Further, the experience provided by Taronga staff was invaluable, particularly regarding government processes, regulations, red tape, basically, and the agreements many zoos and wildlife parks have around the world.
One problem facing many zoos and wildlife parks today is the limited scope available in regard to reproduction. This requires zoos and wildlife parks to transfer animals between parks, including parks and zoos overseas such as the San Diego Zoo, to assist in introducing new strains and genetic structures which, in the wild, is a natural phenomena, but with animals kept in captivity the species would die out or develop genetic defects if allowed to continue to mate within the same group.
Another major issue, affecting zoos and wildlife parks, is their relationship with environmentalists and welfare groups, although much work has been done to improve those relationships, as the understanding of zoos and wildlife facilities and the bigger picture is becoming clearer. In closing, it should not go without saying how important volunteers are to this industry.
My research trip has provided newfound knowledge and experience which I know will assist in my role as an MLA and future minister.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016