2008-11-25
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 Charles Darwin University Bridging Program students who are doing Certificate III in General Education for Adults, accompanied by Ms Lorraine Sushames. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the revised sitting dates for 2009. This includes the three extra sitting dates which are 16 February, 17 August and 19 October. I am also very pleased to advise that the Legislative Assembly will be sitting in Alice Springs from 24 to 26 November 2009.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder about the timeliness of this. Whilst I appreciate there is anticipation that the sitting dates will be added to the calendar, I am surprised that we are tabling them prior to the debate being completed and a report being received from the Standing Orders Committee. This House has not decided on those extra dates.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the sensitivities of the member for Port Darwin, but I also understand the government is clearly on the record as saying there will be three extra sitting days next year. The Standing Orders Committee did meet yesterday and we indicated the timeliness of the sitting days and where they would need to fall.
We did so, appreciating and understanding that for many of the members who do not reside in Darwin the sitting days have a far greater impact on their ability to schedule their electorate work.
Madam Speaker, I also understand you have been fielding a lot of questions from members, quite appropriately, about the timing of the Alice Springs sittings. For the community of Alice Springs, it is important news to hear when parliament, under a Labor initiative, travels to Alice Springs …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Resume your seats. While I appreciate the comments you have made, member for Port Darwin, I had sought advice from the Clerk regarding making this announcement. The sitting dates are quite separate to anything before the House in relation to numbers of days; it is entirely up to the Speaker which days the parliament sits.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! May I see this list of new sitting dates, in that case?
Madam SPEAKER: I have just tabled them.
Mr ELFERINK: Do they include the extra Mondays which were proposed?
Madam SPEAKER: The dates are being tabled now.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, do they include the extra Mondays which were proposed?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I indicated the new dates include Monday 16 February, Monday 17 August and Monday 19 October.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is my point. The House has not ratified this decision. You are actually announcing a series of new sitting dates which have not been ratified by this House. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I think it is inappropriate that you do so until this House makes that determination.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 1396 petitioners praying that the Northern Territory government urgently establish a safe children’s crossing between Woodroffe and Rosebery on Chung Wah Terrace for schoolchildren and all other children and families in the area. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petition Nos 2 and 3 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Petition No 2
Save Darwin Harbour – 4 points
Date presented: 11 September 2008
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Chief Minister
Date response due: 27 November 2008
Date response received: 24 November 2008
4. Other options – Gunn Point or Koolpinyah areas
Petition No 3
Save Darwin Harbour – 3 points
Date presented: 11 September 2008
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Chief Minister
Date response due: 27 November 2008
Date response received: 24 November 2008
3. Risk Assessment of the gas and petrochemical developments
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to inform the House that today is White Ribbon Day; a day of recognising the need to eliminate violence within families. White Ribbon Day is the largest campaign in the world that involves men in the struggle to end men’s violence against women.
Domestic and family violence is a major health and social issue in Australia. We all know how significant this problem is in the Northern Territory. Members of this parliament have expressed stories from their regions on this issue. Domestic and family violence continues to impact on the lives of far too many Territorians, particularly Indigenous Territorians. Over the years, I have seen firsthand the damage, both physical and emotional, from this particular form of violence. As a community, the Territory must continue to tackle the issues related to domestic violence. As a society, we all have a responsibility to work towards breaking the cycle of violence and protect women and children across the Northern Territory.
Last week, a study was released which highlighted that one in seven Australian boys believe that violence against women was okay. This is totally unacceptable and we need to make real change in community attitudes regarding domestic and family violence.
Last week, I was pleased to meet with Charlie King, who has been working with men in remote communities to turn around the attitudes of men in relation to domestic and family violence. Charlie King is right when he says that as the perpetrators of so much of this violence, men are central to the solution - we cannot do it without them. Charlie has visited some 30 communities over the last couple of years, spreading the message that strong men can protect their families. As Minister for Children and Families, I will do everything I can to work with people like Charlie King to try to turn things around in this all-important area.
Tomorrow, we will see the introduction of a bill to this House to implement mandatory reporting for domestic and family violence. I believe this bill will represent a significant step forward to changing Territory attitudes towards domestic and family violence. White Ribbon Day offers a unique opportunity to promote the no to violence message on many fronts. The focus of this year’s White Ribbon Day is about changing community attitudes - a fitting message as we move to implement universal mandatory reporting of domestic violence across the Northern Territory.
It is also important to recognise the role of White Ribbon Day Ambassadors who promote the importance of men speaking out to stop violence. I am pleased to announce that this year’s White Ribbon Day Ambassadors are: Chief Minister, Paul Henderson; Police Commissioner, Paul White; Darwin Lord Mayor, Graeme Sawyer; Alice Springs Mayor, Damien Ryan; Channel 9 newsreader Jonathan Uptin; Chief Executive Officer, Department of Health and Families, Dr David Ashbridge; Executive Director, Department of Health and Families, Professor Shane Houston; Commander, Southern Division, NT Police, Kym Davies; President, NT Police Association, Vince Kelly; Charlie King, ABC; NT Legal Aid Alice Springs, Russell Goldflam; CDEP Contract Manager, DEWR, Ken Lechleitner; and Aboriginal Housing Manager, Eric Sultan.
This is an impressive list of men who are standing up as official White Ribbon Day Ambassadors, but everyone can be an ambassador for White Ribbon Day.
Wearing a white ribbon is a symbol and a personal pledge that the wearer does not condone violence and is committed to supporting community action and attitudinal change to stop violence within the home. We can reduce violence in the home with real and sustained attitudinal change. I urge everyone to spread the message: Not violent: Not silent, and that violence within the home is not okay.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the opposition joins with government and the minister’s sentiments to put an end to violence. I anticipated the minister making a report this morning, and last night I looked at the report her predecessor made on 30 November 2005. There is a similarity in the statements, but I notice that, in my reply then, I referred to this government’s position when it came to customary law. I have made the point, both in and out of this House over a number of years, that customary law in the criminal jurisdiction can be used as a shield to protect violent men. My position has not changed; sadly the government’s has not either.
In relation to the minister’s report in November 2005, the figures reveal that things have not changed for the better, in fact, they have changed for the worse. That is an indictment on this government; it is also an indictment on us as a community. I note that White Ribbon Day started in 1991 when a bunch of men in Canada joined together to give their support for women who were the victims of violence. In essence it is a day for men. I urge all men in the Northern Territory to not only reflect on violence against women today, but to do it for the other 364 days of the year.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the sentiments given by the minister in relation to White Ribbon Day. I believe it is very important to protect the most vulnerable, especially those people living at home. The more emphasis and publicity that we can put on this, at least we can start to tell people that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.
We should also be making a greater emphasis that all violence is unacceptable. Today, we are focusing on one particular area - violence against women and children. However, as shown in the paper over the last few days, violence, in general in the Northern Territory and the world is still horrific, for example, in the so-called Democratic Republic of Congo. I believe that we should speak up about violence as a whole - that it is unacceptable in our society.
Violence is certainly unacceptable against women and children, but, we also see it on the football field. I recently reported two young men in an Under-14 football match, who both cowardly hit a person who did not even see it coming. It is something that is okay in the minds of young people today. It is not okay on the football field, and it should not be okay in the home or in Palmerston or Alice Springs or many parts of the world that suffer from violence.
I agree with the sentiments that the minister is making today, White Ribbon Day, however, we should also look at the big picture and say that we should not condone violence, wherever it occurs and we should do our best at this time of year, at Christmas, to promote peace.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their comments and invite the member for Araluen to be involved and work with me on the campaign to get the message out about domestic violence across the Northern Territory, especially in our regions.
I am acutely aware of the issues, not only as the member for Arnhem with my own constituents in Arnhem Land, but also as a Yanyuwa woman from the Gulf country, growing up in that environment. As a member of this House and parliament, along with all my parliamentary colleagues, I want to know that we are growing our children for a future without violence, a future where we change the attitudes of society, so that if we see someone getting hurt, it is not acceptable and certainly not in the home; the place where children grow. I thank the members opposite for their support.
Ms ANDERSON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, since becoming minister for Central Australia I have become increasingly concerned at the level of antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs involving youth and children. I know that my concerns are shared by the great majority of residents in Alice Springs. I have listened to all key stakeholders, including the shadow minister for Central Australia, speak about the complex matters associated with this issue. I have spent a number of evenings, until the early hours of the morning, in the hot spots of Alice Springs and personally observed the antisocial behaviour firsthand. I have raised the issue with the Chief Minister and other relevant cabinet colleagues and there is a real willingness in the Henderson government to address this problem in line with community expectations.
My office has been in contact with the office of the federal minister, Jenny Macklin, and I am looking forward to a cooperative approach to this issue from our federal counterparts. There are many good people working to resolve youth issues in Alice Springs, however, clearly more needs to be done and in a more coordinated and effective fashion.
I will outline my approach to achieving real results for the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia. I am advised that as of last Thursday police in Alice Springs have significantly increased their presence in the central business district and that this will be ongoing for the summer period. Having as many police as possible on the streets provides the backbone of any response. I was in Alice Springs to do the markets on the weekend and was in the mall opening an art exhibition and stayed around with friends where I saw the police patrolling the mall on Saturday night. I am also advised that Alice Springs police have agreed to establish a dedicated youth liaison officer, which was a key request to me from youth service providers in Alice Springs. This will help to improve coordination and communication between different providers and agencies, which has been an ongoing problem.
I am of the strong view that some immediate additional measures need to be investigated, including improved lighting throughout the town; effective implementation of a security focused patrol service to supplement the work of the police; and a dedicated youth services coordinator, employed by government but outposted in consultation with Alice Springs Town Council, to improve coordination of youth services in the region. However, I am most concerned to ensure that we respond in a way that is supported by the broader Alice Springs community and those working in the field.
For this reason I will be leading the following approaches. First, a meeting with senior decision-making officers in key agencies and service providers will be convened as soon as possible – before Christmas, to develop a straightforward, no nonsense plan to address youth antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. This will not be another academic planning exercise and it will definitely not be a talk fest. I am suggesting that the group develop five key strategies that are clear and measurable. It will be independently facilitated, at government expense, to merge the achievable proposals for immediate, real and sensible action. I will be announcing the independent facilitator in the next few days.
Second, immediately following the development of this action plan, I will convene a meeting of the five MLAs based in Alice Springs and the minister for youth services to consider an action plan and arrive at bipartisan support of its implementation.
Third, following this process, as the Minister for Central Australia, I will champion the implementation of the plan and seek continual reports on the progress of its implementation which I will feedback to everyone in the community. I know that everyone in this parliament is deeply concerned about antisocial and criminal behaviour in our communities. I hope that today marks the beginning of a more effective approach to assisting young people at risk in Alice Springs into productive life paths for themselves, their families, and the entire community.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Central Australia for her statement. I certainly hope it does mark a new era in addressing the problem we face in Alice Springs and Central Australia. We have seen this before; we have seen glossy brochures, lip service and many media releases about how to deal with the problems in Central Australia. On this side of the House, we believe that it has not worked - it has failed, dismally and the problems are getting worse.
We all know the Northern Territory government is not supporting Central Australia. The Minister for Central Australia described her role, in the Alice Springs News, 13 November, as:
… big name, no blanket.
Will Sheila O’Sullivan be the facilitator of this – it is not a summit, what do we call it – the Chat? Okay. Nevertheless, let us hope that it is someone new, with fresh ideas and has not been down the road before.
We wish you the very best, minister. We know the problems, and we believe that you understand the problems better than some of your colleagues. We are prepared to work with you to get these results and we will be right there behind you if you need a hand.
Ms ANDERSON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex and my shadow. Sadly, I know the problems are real in Alice Springs. I was in the street again on Saturday night and Sunday until 1.30 am with friends of mine and the problem is still there. These are people coming in from remote Aboriginal communities who are causing all these problems in our town. With the support of my colleagues and this government, I will be working to make sure that Alice Springs is safe and hope that my shadow and the other members of this parliament work with me to make sure that we support our town and the community in Alice Springs. They are crying out for help and this is an initiative that has been taken by Youth Services.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I report to the Assembly on my recent visit to Vietnam and progress that has been made on developing a new market for our live cattle trade.
The live cattle trade is worth over $200m to our economy annually and employs thousands of people across the vast pastoral properties of the Northern Territory. As a risk management strategy, considerable effort will be put towards mitigating our reliance on the substantial Indonesian market.
I visited Vietnam recently where I witnessed the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Territory’s live cattle industry, the Khanh Hoa Trading and Investment Company and the Mid Vietnam Live Cattle Breeding Corporation for the establishment of the cattle feedlot project in the Khanh Hoa province of Vietnam. This MOU provides a solid foundation for the development of a commercial live cattle trade between the Territory and the Khanh Hoa province.
In March 2007, a combined Northern Territory industry and government delegation travelled to Vietnam with a range of purposes, including scoping the possibility of the Territory establishing a good trading foothold in Vietnam with a focus on live cattle exports. The then Chief Minister led another delegation to Vietnam in August 2007, and in March 2008 a joint ministerial/industry delegation presented a series of seminars to potential importers in Vietnam detailing the live export and feedlot processes. A direct outcome of those seminars was a follow up visit to Darwin by Khanh Hoa Trading and Investment Company to study the Territory’s cattle industry and export operation.
The delegation then travelled to Indonesia to inspect the feedlot infrastructure to gain a better understanding of how the industry might operate in Vietnam.
Whilst in Australia, the delegation attended a number of briefings on the Northern Territory pastoral industry and live export processes, and inspected export yards and cattle loading facilities in Darwin, as well as a visit to Camfield Station.
In Indonesia, they inspected two feedlots, each with different operational styles and management structures. This enabled a broad picture to be painted for the delegation of the options available when considering what might best work in their environment in Vietnam. A significant component of the feedlot visit was that the delegation saw cattle in one feedlot that had originated from the cattle station they had visited two days prior in the Northern Territory, highlighting the seamless nature of the supply chain and the quality control processes in place to maximise the performance of cattle throughout their transfer from our cattle properties into South-East Asian feedlots.
In July of this year, officers from my department undertook a feasibility study for a proposed cattle feedlotting/slaughter business venture in the Khanh Hoa province in Vietnam. The purpose was to provide an objective appraisal of the economic and other factors required to be considered by the Khanh Hoa Trading and Investment Company prior to their proposed establishment of a live cattle importing venture.
Following our visit to Vietnam earlier this month, our primary role going forward will be to monitor progress and facilitate resolution of issues where we can. In the first instance, it will be necessary to ensure that, through a mix of commercial arrangements with our industry and Meat and Livestock Australia, technical assistance is provided where needed.
Aside from the MOU signing, whilst in Vietnam, I met with the Vice Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Hon Vu Van Tam, and we discussed issues surrounding the finalisation of a suitable Vietnamese health protocol for live cattle imports, and that protocol is now being fast-tracked. I also met with the Vice Minister for Industry and Trade, Hon Mr Nguyen Thanh Bien, to discuss strengthening links between our economies across a range of areas including international education, tourism and sporting exchanges.
It was a short but valuable trip, and I believe that we have reached a significant milestone for the establishment of a live cattle trade between the Northern Territory and Vietnam, a benefit for both our economies.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for Primary Industry for his report this morning. It is very important that the Northern Territory continue to promote its live cattle export industry overseas. It is a boost to our economy to have large amounts of money coming in. The production value from NT cattle is $238m this year.
It concerns me that whilst it is imperative to have these overseas markets, there is some evidence to suggest that demand is outstripping supply in the Northern Territory, and that we need to focus on making our cattle industry far more effective and viable. It seems that this government is intent on paring back our research and development capability in the Northern Territory. We have been paring back services at Berrimah Farm and, without the research and development going in to these aspects of cattle, we will be left floundering. We will be left in the wake of other states who are promoting the wellbeing of their livestock better than we are. We need to focus on what is happening within the Northern Territory to provide the base, the support, and the foundation, for a continued increase in the viability of our cattle industry overseas.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank the member very much for his support. It is true that demand outstrips supply and will continue to do so. We are working very hard to ensure that our cattle industry can meet that demand.
Despite the uninformed comments about Berrimah Farm, most of the research on cattle takes place at Kidman Springs and Owen Springs, not at Berrimah Farm. However, we are working very hard to identify alternative markets to Indonesia. I recall that when the land market collapsed, people were shooting their own animals on their farms, and mutton was selling for 50/kg in the supermarkets. If the Indonesian market collapses, I hope the member for Katherine likes meat as there will be a lot available in the Territory because they will not be able to sell it anywhere else. That is reason we undertook this trip. It is far from a junket, as some of the members opposite said. I invite them to come with me in visiting three cities in three days; it is not what I call a holiday or junket - but it is bloody hard work.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2008-09.
Mr Elferink: That is a bit earlier than expected.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection. It is earlier than expected because, as the member for Port Darwin knows, I am travelling to a Treasurer’s conference this week.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
The mid-year report satisfies the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, and provides updated financial information for 2008-09 through to 2011-12. It also meets the Territory’s mid-year obligations under the Uniform Presentation Framework agreement.
The 2008-09 mid-year report incorporates:
the outcome for the 2007-08 financial year;
In addition, this report provides updated information on both the Territory’s economic and fiscal outlook.
The revised estimates contained within this report coincide with a period of unprecedented stress in both the global and Australian economies. Economic growth in Australia, as forecast in the Commonwealth’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2008-09 report, is expected to slow in 2008-09, with only a moderate increase predicted for 2009-10. This downturn has affected all states and territories in reduced GST revenue and lower investment returns. While the Territory is not immune to this downturn, it is well placed to withstand the effects. The adherence to sustainable fiscal responsibility has resulted in six successive cash surpluses, with debt levels, when measured as a ratio to revenue, at historically low levels.
The key fiscal highlights in the report include:
significant operating surpluses are still predicted for 2008-09 and all forward years;
Further details on the fiscal outlook are contained later in this statement.
In this report, actual economic outcomes for 2007-08, as reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, are included, as well as revised forecasts for the 2008-09 year. For 2007-08, Gross State Product growth is recorded at 3.9%, 1.1 percentage points higher than the growth rate estimated at budget time, with a significant contribution from machinery and equipment investment by major mine operators, and a larger than estimated contribution from nett exports. Employment growth is reported at 5.9%, higher than the 4.8% growth estimated at budget time, due to a strong growth in resident employment across a broad range of industries.
For 2008-09, Treasury has updated the economic indicator forecast provided at the time of the budget. These revisions highlight the effect of increased global uncertainty and cost pressures, as well as continuing confidence in the Territory’s economy. Gross State Product in 2008-09 is forecast to increase by 4.5%, revised down from the 6.6% forecast in the May budget, but still twice the expected national average. The downward revision for growth in 2008-09 reflects the higher than estimated outcome for 2007-08, tempered by increased global uncertainty, tighter access to credit, impacting both businesses and consumers, and lower commodity prices. Nevertheless, the Territory economy in 2008-09 will continue to be supported by strong growth in nett exports, impacted positively by the lower Australian dollar.
Construction activity, employment growth and population growth are expected to remain strong. Investment expenditure will be supported by continuing work on the Darwin Waterfront development, the Bonaparte Gas Pipeline project, the GEMCO Refinery Expansion and the Montara Oil Field development. Public investment will also remain at high levels, supported by the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program (SIHIP), Power and Water Corporation infrastructure investment and a record capital works program.
State Final Demand, a measure of the demand for goods and services in an economy, remains unchanged from the budget. While total consumption expenditure is forecast to increase in 2008-09, the modest decline in State Final Demand reflects the impact of total investment expenditure returning towards long run levels.
Employment is forecast to increase by 2.5% in 2008-09, unchanged from the budget forecast. Employment in the Territory is at record levels, with high participation rates and very low unemployment. The constraint to increasing total employment is finding workers. Population growth is forecast to strengthen to 2% to December 2008, stronger than the budget forecast of 1.9%. The improvement is due to higher rates of interstate and overseas migration.
The year-on-year inflation to December 2008 is forecast to be 4.1%. The inflation outlook reported at the time of the budget was that moderating growth and housing prices and tight monetary policy by the Reserve Bank of Australia would offset rising fuel prices and would lead to a fall in the Darwin inflation rate over 2008.
While the contribution of house price growth has moderated, this has been offset by stronger growth in rents than forecast at the time of the budget. Similarly, at the time of the budget, the outlook was for oil prices to average $US78 per barrel in 2008; to October 2008, oil prices have averaged $US111, which flows through to higher fuel, food, and transportation costs.
In addition, the 30% depreciation of the Australian dollar since September 2008 will mean an increase in the cost of imported goods and services, a substantial portion of the CPI basket.
I return to the updated fiscal outlook. The general government sector cash outcome for 2008-09 and all forward years has been revised downwards, as a result of reduced GST revenue from the Commonwealth, due to the downturn in the Australian economy. This downward revision is more pronounced in 2008-09, as it incorporates the additional $100m carryover of expenditure from 2007-08, as highlighted in the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. However, over the budget cycle, the cash position is expected to return to a surplus position in 2009-10.
The projected cash outcome from a $47m deficit for 2008-09 is a reduction of $56m on the $9m surplus estimated at budget time. This is represented by an increase of $184m to operating payments, partially offset by an increase in operating receipts of $127m. The increase in operating receipts is a result of an increase in specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth of $102m, due to new agreements being finalised or renegotiated, largely related to education and health, including funding for the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
An upward revision to mining royalties of $88m, associated with increased mining production and higher collections received year-to-date; offset by lower than anticipated GST revenue of $48m, due to a reduction in the Commonwealth’s estimates of the national GST pool caused by the downturn in the Australian economy; and lower income tax equivalents and dividends of $17m, largely associated with the dividend moratorium provided to the Power and Water Corporation to support capital investment.
Payments for 2008-09 have increased as a result of government decisions of $33m, including the 2008 election commitments and the Buildstart Scheme; the carryover of expense obligations from 2007-08 of $100m, largely related to the timing of delivery of Commonwealth funded programs; and payments of $74m, related to additional specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth.
On an accrual basis, the nett operating balance remains in surplus in all years, while the fiscal balance is now expected to remain in deficit before returning to a small surplus in 2011-12. The positive operating balance and improving fiscal balance over the budgetary cycle indicates that the Territory’s aim of a balanced position for both measures by 2012-13 remains achievable.
Nett debt at the non-financial public sector is expected to be largely in line with that projected at budget time, despite the downward revision to cash targets brought about by the current economic conditions. When measured as a ratio to revenue, nett debt is estimated to be 39% by 2011-12, which still represents an improvement of 28% on the 67% recorded in 2001-02.
Like all governments, the Territory’s investments have also been affected by the financial crisis. As at 30 June 2008, total investments of the Northern Territory government were valued at $1.112bn, compared to an estimate of $1.089bn at 31 October. This negative return of 2.7% compares favourably to a 23% drop for the Australian Securities Exchange over the same period. Over the last five years, the Territory’s average return on the total investment portfolio has been 6.5%. Nett debt plus employee liabilities is expected to continue to fall, in line with budget time estimates over the forward years to 103% by 2011-12. As foreshadowed in the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and the 2008 Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook Report, the reduction in the bond rate used in valuing the Territory’ superannuation liability, as required by accounting standards, largely accounts for the increase on the 2007-08 outcome of 89%, back to budget time estimates.
In conclusion, the 2008-09 mid-year report provides further evidence of this government’s adherence to fiscal responsibility which underpins our commitment to maintaining strong fiscal strategy principles, whilst promoting economic activity and growth for the Territory. By continuing to manage the Territory’s finances responsibly, this government has maintained its trend toward achievement of all fiscal targets, whilst continuing to stimulate the Territory’s economy and provide for all Territorians. This takes on added importance, given the recent downturn in both the global and Australian economies which has affected all jurisdictions, including the Territory. Whilst this presents challenges to our budget, with economic growth in the Territory estimated to be twice the national average and careful financial management over recent years, we are well positioned to deal with this.
Madam Speaker, I commend the 2008-09 Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 22 October 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, today’s debate and the consideration of this bill is a very serious and important matter for Territorians, and it strikes me that people who watch these matters have been let down by this government. Once again, it appears that we have a government prepared to say what is necessary to achieve a perception.
I believe it was established in 2001 that whistleblowers’ legislation would be developed, but time has proceeded slowly - even slower with the development of this bill.
Any assertion that this is good and we have done it, remembering that this is the third term of the Labor government and granted that a previous administration did not bring forward whistleblowers legislation, is academic. The matter at hand is that we have legislation now; legislation that has been promised, anticipated, and expected. Then the Treasurer described this on the news today as: ‘middle of the pack’, which is another way of saying mediocre or lacklustre - a safe option for government. That is the greatest concern with this. Here is an opportunity to do what is right; what the community expects, and for which standards have been established around the country, and recently assessed by the Australian Research Council.
This government, with all its delays of this ‘slow train coming’, had the opportunity to assess Whistleblowing in the Australian Public Sector, the first report from the national research project Whistling While they Work, and to adopt systems that would be the envy of other jurisdictions, and to provide real protection for those who speak up. However, it appears not to have taken heed of this report which highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses of different systems around the country. It is quite disturbing for whistleblowers’ legislation to be safe, middle of the pack, and lacklustre, when it comes to the intent, attitude, and the courage of government to do the right thing. They have had the opportunity and failed when it comes to these aspects.
This government has spoken much of transparency and I will quote from an address by Senator John Faulkner when he launched Whistling While they Work:
There are a number of issues that we will go through in the amendments in the committee stages which would enhance transparency and allow this government to stand more confidently and comfortably with the use of that word, because they would allow greater transparency and therefore, greater protection for those who feel the need to speak up in the public interest. There is a famous quote that many would be familiar with - I trust it is more than just words - by Edmund Burke who said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. In Whistleblowing in the Australian Public Sector, Dr A J Brown from ANU, said:
This is the opinion of a team tasked by the Australian Research Council to develop a best practice public interest disclosure model for Australia. Here was an opportunity for government to back slogans with substance, but they have failed to do so. However, not pre-empting the decisions that government may make as we go through the amendments in the committee stage, maybe there is an opportunity for some improvements to be taken on board. This team spent three years researching every aspect of whistleblowers’ legislation in Australia and overseas.
Who are whistleblowers? The research by the ARC into whistleblowing in the public sector discovered that the majority of whistleblowing starts and ends with internal reporting of an issue, with most employees using the organisational chain to raise concerns over practices. The ARC study revealed that of the public employees surveyed, 61% witnessed serious wrongdoing, with only 28% actually reporting wrongdoing. Of those that reported - this is the concern - only 1% went to an external body, usually the media, generally when every other avenue had failed. Why only 1%? It is not hard to understand. Perhaps those who are in government, with a temptation to protect power, would use that power to ensure that they are not held to a level of scrutiny.
For someone to feel so driven, that they must go to the media, for the public interest, is an extraordinary person indeed. They go exposed and unprotected, and sadly, there are cases and matters, great and small, even in the Northern Territory, which weigh heavily upon them, but the difficulty they face in taking it further, without any protection, must weigh heavily on some of our citizens. Here is an opportunity to provide them with the protection so that civic institutions can be protected.
The government’s bill allows public officials to blow the whistle on other public officials or government agencies that are engaged in corruption or malpractice. The government’s bill fails to address that the Territory government awards contracts worth millions of taxpayer dollars to private or semi-private organisations to provide goods and services on its behalf. There is no level of protection under the government’s bill to protect an employee of a private company who blows the whistle on corruption and malpractice in this domain.
In a submission by the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights to the House of Representatives inquiry into whistleblowing, the point was made that the location of the whistleblower is irrelevant. An external supplier of legal services who discovered an abhorrent breach in the law should still both blow the whistle and have their interests protected in doing so. This would then protect the key disconnect between government and the significant amount of work that is procured by the government but provided by third party private corporations.
It is worth noting, that the provisions for including private contractors providing services to the government have been included under our amendments, however, the government’s bill would not protect the employees, for example, of St John Ambulance or nursing agency staff that witnessed or reported wrongdoing in our hospitals. These contract employees work along side our public sector nurses and medical staff and are employed with public funds but, because their employer is under contract to the government, they would not be protected for any form of whistleblowing. Our amendments would assist in providing that necessary protection.
The same would be true of road crews and engineers that are contracted to build the Territory’s roads and construction crews that are building houses and schools in remote communities on behalf of a government department. The location should not be an issue. If the government was serious about promoting an open and accountable government, it should be ensuring that everyone who is directly or indirectly paid by the taxpayer is protected when they see practices that affect the safety of Territorians or the misuse of public funds.
This is not an effort to curtail any profit margins that a private sector company may be able to achieve; that is the nature of private business. These contractors and their employees are under the direction of public bodies, so there must be protection when they see malpractice and corruption, just like their public sector colleagues.
An important aspect, in providing the ultimate protection of our citizens, and the institutions and agencies that we construct to deliver services for Territorians, is the capacity for someone who has raised a concern to disclose that concern to a third party. The Territory government forwarded this bill over a month after the publication of the ARC report and still managed to leave out any avenue for the person to take their disclosure to the media as a last resort. Why would that be? As the Treasurer said in the news this morning: ‘it is middle of the pack’, or mediocre or safe for government. Safe to prevent someone going to the media, if they feel there is a reasonable case for it, and be protected.
Why would it not provide that opportunity? I think the answer is obvious. It wants to stay middle of the pack, to have a Clayton’s whistleblowers regime, so it can say it has done it. There were opportunities to lift the bar and set something of a standard that achieves the rhetoric of government in terms of transparency and the ultimate protection. There were opportunities to do that, but it failed.
Some high profile cases, where there were attempts to rectify the problem through internal means, prove that disclosure to the media is the only option to change these damaging practices. Sadly, there are examples to demonstrate that there is the need for the escalation. I have had the very good fortune to meet Nurse Toni Hoffman, an Australian Local Hero, who was recognised by the Australia Day Council for her achievements. I sat beside her and heard her story about being burdened by what she had seen. When she began to have it investigated and inquired upon internally, she found that she then became the target, which was immensely difficult. She was brought into question, while she was going through the process that was available to her. That was in Queensland, which some commentators regard as having the better model.
It was not until she took the immense personal risk - because of her courage - to step out of any protection that was available and which was not affording any justice or recognition for the serious issues relating to Dr Death, and went to a member of parliament - unprotected. Those issues then became public through parliamentary privilege. She was still unprotected and it was not until the media became involved that the system charged with the responsibility of justice and bringing to light these horrible matters in Queensland kicked in to gear. Until that point there was no justice and in fact, the one who blew the whistle became the target.
The Queensland model may have some merit, but there is a strong argument, that if there is the unsatisfactory weighing of the matters raised, then there should be the possibility of escalating, in the interests of defending public interests and the public good and the person blowing the whistle should also be protected. It is not the interest of government that is at stake here, it is the interests of the public - the citizen.
There is another issue in Australian Customs that members may be aware of. Allan Kessing, a customs employee at Sydney Airport, wrote two reports. This is another example are of a public servant who, because of his conscience and his sense of what is right and fair, felt that he must do what was right. These reports, which included the issuing of security passes to illegal immigrants and people who do not even exist, were rejected by customs officials.
After his report was rejected he passed the information on to the media, but as he was an employee of a Commonwealth agency he was not protected for this disclosure. While supported by his colleagues, he was the only one who went forward to the media. How many others would have observed this but felt constrained and afraid to take the next step and satisfy the issues of conscience and do the right thing? They had to weigh it up in terms of their income, the protection at work – they held back. That is why only 1% step forward and I admire those people immensely. They need to be protected.
He was supported by his colleagues, but was the only one who went forward to the media. He was close to retiring and that is why he chose to take that next step. Others probably had mortgages and kids and they were uncertain about their own future and the threats that may be issued. Ministers maybe aware of threats that can pass through the system – subtle threats that can be echoed down the chain – keep your head in, do not speak on that matter – and that culture can be easily fed and sustained. That is why only 1% will step forward and if you are fair dinkum you need to provide protection for those who are burdened by conscience when they need to speak up.
That is why there is an opportunity to provide that protection, to protect the public; not to be middle of the pack, mediocre, or safe - safe for government - government protecting its power base is not the object of the exercise. The exercise is to use that power for good and to protect good citizens who want to step forward.
Another very disturbing case is that of Milton Orkopoulos, a New South Wales MP, and this one should weigh quite heavily on us. Gillian Snedden helped expose her boss, Milton Orkopoulos, a convicted paedophile. She first raised the allegations with Orkopoulos and then another member of parliament. She was assured that the matter had been dealt with, but when she was contacted by police after more allegations, she realised nothing had been done and began helping police.
Can you see that there is an interest within the organisation to protect itself, and by doing so, place young people at great risk? They would weigh up someone who is a convicted paedophile – this is the sort of issue that we need to recognise when we are crafting these instruments: ‘Am I going to protect my own power and in doing so, protect power, not inquire into issues of paedophilia and extraordinarily assist and allow that to occur?’ They made that judgment and chose not to investigate. The one who raised their voice – what happened? They were assured, ‘Do not worry, it is being looked into’. She discovered, after accepting those assurances – and I am sure that person was looked in the eye and told, ‘Do not worry, it is all being looked after. Do not be concerned about that’. But what happened? She found out later that it had not been looked into at all. People were prepared to put that undercover and continue on, in the interests of power, therefore leaving exposed, vulnerable young people. For her efforts, she was eventually made redundant - this is in Australia - while colleagues who remained silent kept their jobs and received promotions.
I do not want to see that happen here. We will have assurances that this is a little different and that is not the case, and so on. To be absolutely sure that we can provide the highest level of protection, we need to take it to the next step, and not be in the ‘middle of the pack’, as the member for Karama is happy to describe it. I would be appalled if I was Chief Minister and I had a spokesman saying, this is pretty good, it is ‘middle of the pack’, it is really mediocre.
You had the opportunity to lift it up to a new level and provide the ultimate protection, so that you feel you have done the right thing. You had that opportunity because there has been this high level report and investigation into practices around the country - a perfect opportunity; perhaps that is what you were waiting for. It was in 2001 that the former Chief Minister made these pronouncements. Then the slow train came along and since then there have been other developments - three years of research and then the report - here is the opportunity you have been waiting for, in 2008, to incorporate some of these. So you could be seen to be a Territorian who takes these issues very seriously and, even at a risk to government, choose to do the right thing.
Hopefully, with the amendments, which will be considered by honourable members during the committee stages, there is the opportunity to provide a higher level of protection, so we can walk away from this parliament knowing we have established something which is at a higher level than just mediocre and ordinary.
Another aspect is the reporting. The government’s bill has gone a little way to ensuring that the commissioner reports to the discloser - that is important. However, it only requires that the person making the disclosure be contacted in very limited circumstances and with very few definite time frames. The bill requires the commissioner to report to the person making the disclosure in the following circumstances: within a reasonable time after the completion of the investigation; or if the commissioner decides not to investigate a disclosure, he must report back to the whistleblower within 14 days of that decision.
If a person has stuck their neck out and reported malpractice or corruption within their organisation, they would want to know that it has been received and when they can expect an answer. Reporting requirements are especially important in cases where an investigation into a matter finds there is no wrongdoing or no reason to take any further action. It is very important to keep people informed; it is especially important in cases where someone has taken an extraordinary step to report a matter of corruption or malpractice within their workplace. They need to be given feedback within discrete time frames. I am concerned about the looseness of this part of the bill. Hopefully, with the amendments, that can be tightened up.
There is a need for this, which is highlighted in the submission by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Office to the House of Representatives inquiry into whistleblowing, which recognised the importance of reassuring a discloser during the whistleblowing process that the investigation is being taken seriously, and, I quote:
The report continued by stating that:
It is a basic people management issue. I urge government to consider these amendments so that there are some constraints, some discreteness about the time frames by when the report should come back to the discloser. A person who has observed something and wants to make it known to the commissioner, cannot be left out to dry; you must manage that very carefully. Having in place discrete time frames would assist in reassuring that person, but would also ensure that we manage it well and achieve the objective in an expedient way.
I have outlined some significant concerns; there are some serious deficiencies in this. Given the opportunity to be in government and to be Chief Minister and look at this bill, I would have to do the right thing and include the amendments that will be referred today. If you think that this is some kind of word game, or a debating club - it is not. We are talking about whistleblowers, people who have made their way to us as members of parliament. We need a process that enables us to sift, measure, weigh, and assess, what are sometimes serious matters.
Having met Toni Hoffman, I know what she went through and I know how difficult it was for that member of parliament to carry those concerns through. You need to take a step of faith and know that the person needs to be given the extra time, particularly when you are in a culture or organisation where all sorts of measures and pressures can be applied to derail and destabilise someone who has dared to speak up. This could happen in the Northern Territory, honourable members, and it would be fitting on our conscience to ensure that we provide complete protection for someone who does take that additional step.
There are a number of other amendments that would also find us able to achieve that higher position, rather than the middle of the road and the mediocre position that the member for Karama and this government is quite happy to adopt. I am not, and if these amendments are not adopted, they will have to be taken on board, at some future stage, if there is a change of government, because it would be the right thing to do.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the introduction and debate on the whistleblowers’ legislation that my colleague, the Attorney-General, has brought before this House. Ultimately, it is up to the Attorney-General to discuss the merits or otherwise of the amendments proposed by the opposition.
It is a historic day. This is the first time since self-government that any government has introduced whistleblowers’ legislation. I am proud to be the Chief Minister of the government that said, very soon after the August election, it would bring this legislation forward and introduce it before the end of the year. This comes on top of an enormous amount of parliamentary reform, parliamentary scrutiny, and transparency that we, as a government, introduced in our first two terms. Fundamentally, the accountability and the transparency of the government and this parliament is light years away from what we inherited when we came to government in 2001.
Mr Elferink: That is garbage. How many gag motions have we seen in the last two weeks?
Mr HENDERSON: We introduced Freedom of Information legislation - and I hear the wailings of the member for Port Darwin. I have been around the Territory long enough, and an observer of politics before coming into this parliament, and know that introduction of FOI legislation was part of the Country Liberal Party platform for many years. The CLP government of the day never introduced it; their parliamentary wing ignored its own platform, and whatever the structures are of the CLP, they were saying, we must introduce FOI legislation, but it was roundly ignored and never introduced - we have introduced that.
We have debated the formation of the Estimates Committee over and over again. We have opened up the parliament to television cameras and audio streaming, and we will have Internet video streaming. When the CLP were in government, it would not even let in the television cameras.
One of the things that we are very proud of is the introduction of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, to prevent what occurred to the eternal shame of the last CLP government, legislation to promulgate a budget in this House that, in part, was doctored up for presentation purposes and which did not go to the reality of the state of the budget of the day. That can no longer occur. Budget documents and the budget are Treasury documents, not government documents.
We are now introducing whistleblowers’ legislation. We proudly support this legislation and we will debate, with genuine consideration, the amendments put forward by the opposition. Although, I believe there were 18 amendments, Attorney-General, dropped on us late last night, which shows that the opposition did not want us to seriously consider them, but we have considered them and we will have a considered response.
This legislation ensures that if public servants have concerns regarding improper or illegal conduct involving: allegations of bribes, improper inducements, other forms of dishonesty, inappropriate bias, breach of public trust or misuse of confidential information, involved with substantial misuse or mismanagement of public resources, a substantial risk to public health or safety, a substantial risk to the environment or substantial maladministration that specifically, substantially, and adversely affects someone’s interests, they can bring them forward and have them dealt with in a completely confidential manner – this legislation covers a broad and comprehensive set of conducts.
This legislation will now exist, where, since self-government, it has not existed in the Northern Territory. These are specific and significant reforms that we are debating today. The Information Commissioner will apply a threshold test of criminal or dismissible or substantial misconduct when determining whether to investigate a complaint.
Without going into the substance of the committee stage amendments proposed by the opposition, I will pick up on what I thought was a strange contribution by the Leader of the Opposition, when he talked about Milton Orkopoulos and the appalling criminal acts that he committed on young people.
Those are criminal issues and they should have been referred immediately to the police for investigation, not a committee of parliament or an MLA. These types of allegations, or even a remote suspicion that paedophile acts are being committed - heaven help by members of parliament, anyone in the public service or society generally, the public service does employ many people who have contact with children - are not issues for the FOI Commissioner, they are issues for the police and to say …
A member: Need the protection of government.
Mr HENDERSON: … so speaks a former police officer. I trust the police to conduct confidential investigations, to protect not only the person who has come in with the complaint, but also to bring forward that evidence to the court to secure a conviction. I do trust the police to conduct those investigations appropriately, as it is a court of law that needs to deal with paedophiles, not a committee or member of parliament, a Freedom of Information Commissioner or a whistleblowers commissioner - it is the police.
Mr Elferink: It would be wrong then for a member of parliament to ring up the police commissioner and ask about an alleged paedophile would it?
Mr HENDERSON: And there speaks another former police officer and I would have thought he would have known better as well.
Mr Elferink: Tell us about the phone call that Clare Martin made to the Police Commissioner about an alleged paedophile.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Mr Elferink: Outrageous hypocrisy Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin - I am not going down this debate - was briefed by the Police Commissioner. Those are issues to be dealt with by police, not whistleblowers commissioners, or FOI commissioners. If the opposition believes that public servants should be dealing with those types of issues and not the police, I will leave them to explain publicly why they have that particular position.
This is about giving public servants absolute confidence, for the first time, if they believe they have evidence of any substantial misconduct, that it will be dealt with confidentially and they will be protected by the Information Commissioner. There are significant penalties in the bill if the person’s confidentiality is breached, or if there are any decisions by their employer that adversely affect that person as a result of their complaint.
It is an historic day, Madam Speaker. I commend the Attorney-General for bringing this bill forward. He has had extensive consultation with a whole range of people regarding this. It is a further step in ensuring the transparency, openness, and accountability of this government – something that the CLP could never even dream about in the 27 years that they were in government. I urge all members to support the bill we are currently debating.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, just because the Chief Minister says something does not mean it is true. I know that he is given to rewriting history, but I urge him to try his best to stick to the truth when doing so.
There are a number of committee stage amendments, which we urge the government to adopt, so that the Chief Minister can go to bed at night thinking, yes, we did a really good job. Because I doubt, when he goes to bed tonight, he will say, in the absence of our amendments, what a good job he did. How can he possibly say that? Because we have waited seven years and this bill is a far cry from what it should be, from what you have promised, and what the Australian Labor Party has been saying for almost 20 years. I will come to some of those points in a walk down memory lane to see I can move that thing, that presumably some of you have, called a conscience, to see if I can just tweak it a little so that you might squirm and think, ‘Oh, my God what have we become?’
There are a couple of matters, in particular, in the substance of the bill, that I would like to raise. I note that it is proposed that the commissioner has to be satisfied that there is a substantial breach; then he or she will investigate and report to the parliament by way of an annual report. By reporting to parliament, it follows logically that brings it into the public domain. However, there being 12 months in a year, I am compelled to say, as others will, the currency of an issue is lost. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect government’s response to it, noting that this government is lethargic only three months after an election. I presume that this government will similarly respond in a lethargic way to matters raised in annual reports. If an issue comes to the attention of the commissioner early in a 12-month cycle, that matter will not come into the open until the expiration of 12 months or until the commissioner tables a report.
I do not think that serves Territorians very well. Governments respond better to public scrutiny in a timely manner, and traditionally respond badly, in my view and the view of others, when an event has happened 12 months or more ago. Then they tend to squirm and weasel their way around it. If there is a problem, I believe government has the responsibility to deal with it as expeditiously as possible. The opposition thinks a delay of up to 12 months gives government an ‘out’. We have seen this government, over the last seven years, increase its capacity to weasel out of problems that it encounters.
The government says this is terrific, although the member for Karama, in essence, says it is mediocre. The opposition believes that Labor could have done significantly better and could have been true to itself by delivering to this parliament much better legislation, after an almost 20-year wait.
I note that there is a fairly tight definition that the commissioner will be compelled to adhere to. In clause 5 of the bill, the behaviour complained about has to be criminal or substantial maladministration, improper conduct, criminality or a criminal offence. There is a definition of ‘substantial maladministration’, which I am concerned about - we say that is too restrictive. We say that there are types of behaviours which should be complained about, and maladministration is just that - there is not a sliding scale of maladministration. Whether it is substantial or insubstantial, it is still maladministration. I now know why the member for Karama - the would-be next Chief Minister of the Northern Territory; probably mid-next year, I reckon – referred to this bill as ‘middle of the pack’ - read mediocre.
By insisting on this definition – and this is illustrative of the problems contained in the bill – of substantial maladministration, sends a very clear message to the people of the Northern Territory that this government is prepared to countenance maladministration, as long as it is not substantial. There is no sliding scale - misconduct is misconduct, maladministration is maladministration. That is illustrative of why this bill is mediocre.
It is appropriate that I refer to what Chris Warren, Federal Secretary of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance said last month, and we know our amendments address this. I quote from an ABC Online article on 23 October:
And:
He continues:
Despite the somewhat delusional view of the government as a whole, this bill has not pleased everyone. It should have, given the nearly 20-years we have all been waiting for this oft-promised whistleblowers’ legislation.
You had an opportunity to use your wonderful position to produce a ripper of a bill - and you failed. Why? Because, paraphrasing the member for Karama, you are a mediocre lot. You are so mediocre it is embarrassing. If you think that the Territory is served well by a mediocre government, you will be judged at the next election. If you think Territorians deserve a mediocre government then I do not know what you are doing here. However, I digress, Madam Deputy Speaker, my apologies.
Everyone knows, even the most casual observer of politics knows, that governments, regardless of their political colour, respond better to public scrutiny than any other form of scrutiny. If someone dares to argue that with me it will be a very interesting debate. How can it not be so? Governments do respond better to public scrutiny than any other form. You cannot protect the public interests in private.
I note that Dr A J Brown from Griffiths University says that the bill, ‘… needs to be widened to allow people to go public as a last resort and also to give better protection for public servants’. I feel certain that members opposite will not be quoting Dr Brown. Members opposite do not understand, or perhaps within themselves they do, but they are putting forward this public position that this is pretty good, albeit mediocre, legislation. Shame on you.
There are a couple of other areas that shows the government has fallen short. One of the aspects the government’s bill fails to address is that the Territory government awards contracts worth millions of taxpayer dollars to private or semi-private organisations to provide goods and services on behalf of government. There is no level of protection under the government’s bill to protect an employee of a private company who blows the whistle on corruption and malpractice in this domain. My colleagues and I believe that is unfortunate.
Furthermore, when this government’s bill is held up against the ARC best practice guidelines, referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, we know that government contractors are not included in any of the disclosure categories. That is not good enough. When you are looking at best practice elsewhere, if you are happy with mediocrity, we are not.
There is no protection for people who take their disclosure to the media. There are no time frames to release progress reports to the discloser during an investigation - that is not very good, is it?
Disclosures cannot be made by or about former members of the public service when that disclosure is in relation to their former role - that is not very good, is it?
It is curious that the Electoral Commissioner is exempt from disclosures being made about that position, and all information submitted to or created as a result of public disclosure is exempt from the Information Act. They are just some of the difficulties.
On our analysis, the government’s bill will not protect employees, for instance, of St John Ambulance, or nursing agency staff who witness and report wrongdoing in our hospitals. I stress that is our analysis. If the Attorney-General wants to correct that, or elaborate and convince us otherwise in his reply, we will be listening intently.
These contract employees work alongside our public sector nurses and medical staff and are employed with public funds, but because their employer is under contract to the government, they would not be protected for any form of whistleblowing. That is not very good, is it?
Now for the walk down memory lane - I just can not resist it. Members opposite have said and if I heard him correctly, the Chief Minister was saying it was an historic day. Maybe it is for some of the Labor members of this parliament, and Labor members of the rank and file party, but I feel certain it is not for others.
We have waited seven years for this and we, and so many others, are disappointed. I thought that after a seven year wait - since they came into office - the legislation, a) would have been done much sooner; and b) would have been dazzling - great legislation. It is close to Christmas and it is like getting a big Christmas parcel, beautifully wrapped with a big pink bow across the top; then unwrapping it and after an hour of unwrapping, finding a nail clipper with a card saying: ‘Wishing you a Merry Christmas’. Talk about being ripped off. It is underwhelming in the extreme, given the hype – seven years they said: vote for us, vote for us, we will do whistleblowing, and what do they do? Put a nail clipper in a big box. I do not think that is good enough.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … you will get your go, sport. Seven years of government, all those years in opposition and they say: ‘Have a look at this’. But it goes further. Remember Terry Smith? He was Labor leader in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I know Terry, I had a barbeque with him in my home town of Bendigo a couple of years ago; not a bad fellow. However, when Terry was leader …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Hold on! Hold on! Do not go the distance yourself; you can leave if you like. Back when Terry Smith was leader in the late 1980s, early 1990s …
A member: Who has not had a barby with Terry Mills?
Ms CARNEY: I am giving the members opposite a lesson in their own history - I should not be doing it …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … you should be so committed, all you true believers, keeping it real and all that sort of stuff – you should be ashamed.
However, allow me to walk you down the road of nostalgia as we talk about whistleblowers. In the early 1990s, I am reliably informed that Terry Smith promoted honesty and integrity in a document called The Open Book - sounds suspiciously like Mao’s Little Red Book, but I digress - The Open Book: pathways to honest and accountable government. It included, I am reliably advised, he said: ‘Legislation should protect public servants who expose misconduct or inefficiency within government’.
These days, Labor does not want to blow the whistle on inefficiency. Labor does not even want to blow the whistle or have the whistle blown on maladministration; it has to be substantial maladministration. Terry Smith did not use the word ‘substantial’. Back then, when Labor was a better version of itself than it is now, it was: ‘We are going to get on and we want honest, open, and accountable government’. My, the worm has turned.
Brian Ede was another Labor leader. I know Brian, he was from Alice Springs. In 1993, I understand, he said …
A member: You had left already - gone to Coffin Bay.
Ms CARNEY: No, it was before 1993, I cannot quite remember, that I had my 15 months in Coffin Bay and came back to the Territory, after I reported a lawyer who was stealing money from his clients and could not get a job in Port Lincoln.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You want integrity …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … I will give you integrity …
A member: Take it easy.
Ms CARNEY: … and you, my friend, I assume, have removed every mirror in your office and your house because you cannot possibly look at it and say: ‘Hmm, there is a man with integrity’. The government cannot possibly look at itself. In fact, I must give myself an invitation to go up to the government offices at some point and see if they have removed all the mirrors. I wonder whether that is the case.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Anyway, Brian Ede brought up the whistleblowers again in about 1993. Then there was Maggie Hickey. I know these people, although I never met Maggie, their portraits are all lined up outside my office and every morning I say: ‘Good morning, Terry. Good morning, Brian. Good morning, Maggie’ …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Maggie Hickey, a woman much respected on both sides of the House and, I believe, a woman of integrity from what I have read and heard of her. But, Maggie was a died-in-the-wool Laborite and she rehashed whistleblowers as well. There were a number of motions put in the parliament when Labor was in opposition. I believe they probably worked harder then than they do now. They want to knock off early, they do not want to finish the job and lazy Labor is limping listlessly along to the end of the year.
Let us go back to 1996 when Maggie Hickey moved a motion headed, according to the Hansard, ‘Government Accountability’. She said, and I quote:
Very important point: are credible:
Very important point:
Another important point. She went on to say that:
Since the late 1980s, early 1990s, Labor has been wedded to whistleblowers. Then, after all of the years in opposition, they finally get themselves into government. One of the ways they got themselves into government was issuing papers like this. This is the one you cannot find, I am advised, on the Labor Party website because it was removed, I believe, a couple of years ago. Why, Madam Speaker? They were embarrassed. It is this mirror thing. They could not look at this document with any ounce of integrity or pride.
This one was called Good Government and it has Clare Martin on the front. It talks about really fantastic things like government behaving responsibly, transparently, and to high standards. The whistleblowers get a guernsey in the index; that is how seriously, after all these years, they regarded whistleblowers. True enough, whistleblowers is referred to in the document, and there is no doubt that:
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: This is about you.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms CARNEY: Do not talk about our bill.
Dr Burns: What about your bill?
Ms CARNEY: Go your hardest, sport! Seven years in government and you have had all these challenges - the biggest budget for the fifth floor that the Northern Territory has ever seen; the biggest revenue from all over the place - GST revenue springs to mind, the most revenue that the Territory government has ever received. You are resource rich, but intellectually poor. You are a lazy government, because by the admission of the want-to-be Chief Minister – and I do not know whether you know that some of us are running a book on when she will jump - after seven years you have finally …
Ms Lawrie: Get over it!
Ms CARNEY: Well, you should not say much because you always get yourself into trouble. You say this is a mediocre bill. Shame on you. For the Attorney-General to say: ‘What about your bill?’ Shows you for the man that you are - you are a petty man. This is not about us; this is about you and your history. For almost 20 years, those opposite, rank and file members, are in and out of this Chamber, saying with hand on heart – for those who have them – ‘Believe in us, because we are the true believers and we are going to deliver these reforms because we believe in whistleblowing’. No you do not - not seriously. You have weaselled and fudged, and you have no integrity or credibility. I look forward to the invitation to the government offices so I can do a count of the mirrors, because how on earth you can look at yourselves in the mirrors is beyond me. Good luck at your next party conference. If you still have any true believers signed up to your party, I will bet London to a brick that some of them will be talking about this bill and how you have lost your way.
Do not sanctimoniously lecture us on what we have done. This is about you lot. You cannot believe anything you say and you cannot believe in what you do. The Minister for Central Australia has been trying her best to become a member of the Country Liberals - bagging her own government - to her credit. Of all the members opposite, she is the only one who has had the courage to say: ‘Our government is not doing well, is it?’
Those opposite, her Cabinet colleagues, should listen to the interviews or read the transcripts. My instincts tell me that staff on the fifth floor have been poring assiduously over the transcripts and, presumably, discussions have occurred. I take my hat off to her because at least she is trying – she is only talking the talk at this point and with Labor as a group, you always have to see if you can pick the difference between what they say and what they actually do. So far, she is talking the talk and she knows that there is always a difference between what you say and what you do – it is not just our side and other Territorians who cannot believe what you say - it is one of your own.
Madam Speaker, I have given Labor a journey down its own nostalgia lane. I have speculated on what might be happening on the fifth floor, congratulated the Minister for Central Australia for giving it to her colleagues, and, as best as I can, made the point that not only is this government a failure and a lazy government, three-and-a-bit months after election, but it is also an incompetent one, that does not know its own history and cannot be trusted. Bring on the next election.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I feel like the umpire who has just finished a training session on Wednesday night. However, I digress. It is about whistleblowers but not that type of whistleblower. I do not particularly want to go down memory lanes or blame one party or the other, I want to look at the particular issue that is before us. The legislation has its objects, as it says under clause 3 of the bill:
The bill has to be judged against the objects of the act, which in general, it does, however, on some key issues, it does not. That is what concerns me. I do note the amendments that the CLP has put forward and, to some extent, I do not see that …
A member: Country Liberals.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, Country Liberals. I do not necessarily see that as opposing the bill; to some extent, it is tightening up certain parts of the bill, which are a concern to me as well.
One of my major concerns is a test for people in my occupation, a member of the Legislative Assembly. I do not believe that the objects of the act can be upheld if a person complains about some conduct of mine. If a disclosure is made under clause 11, ‘How public interest disclosure is made’, it says:
The MLAs, presumably because they are a member of parliament, are immediately referred to the Speaker. If you go on further, you ask, what happens then? The bill states:
It concerns me that the word ‘may’ gives the Speaker the right to either deal with it themselves or pass it to the commissioner. The question is, if it is not passed over to the commissioner, what happens to the complaint?
I am not making any inferences to you, Madam Speaker - I am talking in general. In many states, the Speaker is a member of the government. I put forward the scenario of a complaint about a particular member of the government which would go to the Speaker. The Speaker, being a member of the government, may find pressure within the government, whether direct, indirect, or perceived, and the Speaker could say: I am not taking this any further. This could be perceived as a biased adjudication of the complaint.
The Country Liberals are trying to ensure that cannot happen, because if it does not get looked at by the Speaker, it can go to the Commissioner. I believe there needs to be something with more teeth than in the present bill. I believe the public would expect that if someone disclosed about an MLA, they would not be dealt with any differently than if there were a disclosure about another member of the public service. I see that as a weakness in this legislation.
Unless that was changed, I would have difficulty supporting it, because I believe it is a major flaw. It is one rule for people in the public service and another rule for MLAs. Yet, in section 7, ‘Public officers’, it says that:
(1) Each of the following is a public officer:
(a) an MLA;
Therefore, (b), (c) and (d) are dealt with one way, and (a), an MLA, is dealt with in another way. I would prefer that an MLA was dealt with similarly to everyone else, so there was not the possibility that a disclosure against an MLA could be hidden, or disappear into the ether of time because the Speaker did not wish to refer that matter on.
I see that as an omission in the act. Whilst there may be pressure on the Speaker to reveal that there was a disclosure, because that cannot be referred to the press and because the matter is confidential, no one would know there had been a complaint about an MLA. Unless the Speaker mentioned it in parliament or the discloser was brave enough to go to the press - nothing may happen. Also, if they went to the press under this act, they would not be covered by any form of protection. That is a major fault with this legislation. Much of this legislation is good, however, I believe, that you needed a little more to make it better.
The CLP has put forward incentives, to make sure things do not disappear into the bureaucracy of time. So, if there is no indication of anything happening within a certain period, the person may be able to go to the press. That is certainly an incentive to make things move faster. It is the type of thing that would make a government move along a little faster than if it did it under its own power.
There are some issues that I will discuss when it goes to committee stage. I believe it is good that we have brought forward the Public Interest Disclosure Act. We can argue that this should have been brought forward a long time ago or that the previous government, back in the CLP days, should have brought it forward, but to some extent, that is irrelevant. We are bringing forward legislation and we need to debate its merits. We need to debate whether it will satisfy the objects of the act, if it is passed. I believe this is the basis on which we should be debating at the committee stage. Will this act ensure that public interest information disclosed is properly investigated, and that any impropriety revealed is properly dealt with?
The first part: that public interest information disclosed is properly investigated - I believe it has failed in relation to an MLA. The second part: any impropriety revealed by the investigation is properly dealt with - I do not believe there is anything to ensure that issues are dealt with in a reasonable time. Otherwise these issues may be dealt with properly, but it may take two, three, four, or five years? I believe it needs clauses and incentives to make sure that legislation which has nice objectives is written to ensure those objectives are carried out in a practical and timely manner. I will continue this debate during the committee stage.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of electorate officers from the following electorates, Blain, Ms Tasma McCall; Katherine, Mrs Pat Witte; Greatorex, Ms Karen Berry; Braitling, Ms Tanya Turner; Brennan, Ms Amy Sternberg; Fong Lim, Ms Helen Bateman; Goyder, Ms Trish O’Hehir; Port Darwin, Tory Mencshelyi and Ms Alicia Lantry; Sanderson, Ms Fiona Lynch; and Nelson, Ms Kim Lawlor. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I make a few observations and my contribution to this debate regarding the whistleblowers legislation. I cannot help but be struck by the fact that after seven years this is what has been produced for the people of the Northern Territory.
Without going back into the accusations of mediocrity about this bill, one would have hoped for something more substantial from this government, as they have now had seven years to introduce this bill. Whilst we reflect on all of the things the CLP did or did not do in the past, it remains that this government has had an opportunity to introduce this legislation much earlier. I see an opportunity lost, and whilst I appreciate the necessity for a bill of this nature, that necessity has existed for quite some time; perhaps even to a time prior to the current Labor administration of the Northern Territory.
The legislative instrument before this House sets in a fairly straightforward way the structures of how public disclosures should be dealt with, should a person who is in the public service choose to go down that path. It is not something I would expect a public servant would take lightly. The public servant who takes this step would, under any other circumstances, be committing a criminal offence in the Northern Territory. I note, in the operation of this act, that should a public servant choose to go down this path, in circumstances outlined in clause 14(4)(a) and (b), then they will still be committing a criminal offence. Clause 14 sits at the heart of public disclosure legislation.
Clause 14(1) of the bill says:
I draw members’ attention to clause 14(4):
What this means is that when a person makes a disclosure relying on this legislation, they are relying on the definitional structure of this legislative instrument with a view to making a disclosure, which they hope is a reasonable thing to do. If they get it wrong, then the effect of this legislative instrument is that they will not take succour under clause 14(1). Consequently, they will then be liable, both criminally and civilly, and in a disciplinary fashion, I add, for the disclosure that they have made.
I am aware - I cannot quote chapter and verse – that under the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory, it is a crime for a public servant to make a disclosure. Without the protection of clause 14, a public servant takes an enormous risk in what they are doing. However, that is what this whole issue is about; getting the balance right. I would not argue for one second that government should be made unmanageable by virtue of the operation of a legislative instrument. Government still has to be able to do its job and, in many instances, in a confidential fashion. I have no qualms or problems with that. To allow an instrument to exist on the books which was, by its very nature, a carte blanch for any public servants to make any accusation that they please, would well be a matter of concern.
I note that Douglas and Jones’s Administrative Law, 4th Edition, page 178, uses an interesting quote from The Crucible, where it argues that it should not be open slather for public servants to make disclosures:
How apt is that? If you did allow a carte blanche arrangement to exist for disclosures to be made, then any vindictive, irresponsible or simply aggressive public servant who was displeased with a decision regarding their department’s operation, could make disclosures and governing would become impossible as a consequence.
However, we have to strike a balance. We need to remember that protecting whistleblowers and this type of legislation, where it exists in other jurisdictions, has been the product of a desire of good and honest public servants to bring corrupt or improper activities, which occur in the public service, to the publics’ attention.
We all remember the Four Corners report - I do not think there is anyone too young - in the late 1980s, The Moonlight State which, ultimately, led to the collapse of the Queensland government. There were shocking findings against people such as the Queensland commissioner and inherent corruption which had percolated through the senior administration of many of the departments and sections of Queensland. It was an awful thing. At the time there were interviews given by senior public servants who were shocked, and rightfully so, by what was happening around them.
Between those two extremes, there has to be an instrument which would enable public servants to step outside the normal mainstream and say: ‘This is wrong. This needs to be addressed’. I believe that this is an attempt by government to achieve it. I wish it could be more than what it is, because we would be one of the last jurisdictions in the country, I expect, to be introducing a legislative instrument of this sort. It would be nice to know that we had the capacity to pick up on those shortcomings in other legislative areas, and not have those shortcomings reflected in this legislation.
Reports have been produced, and I understand that the Leader of the Opposition, as we massage this bill through the committee stages, will ask the government to take on some of the amendments which have been produced, with a view to creating a best practice model. It is interesting that we are on this particular issue at the moment, as it is worth reflecting on what is a best practice model, based on some of the comments that the Chief Minister made earlier on. I will return to those shortly; I will be relying on a Hansard rush that I obtained during the luncheon adjournment.
However, I will now discuss the issue of reprisals, and I am quoting again from Douglas and Jones’s Administrative Law:
That is followed by another quote:
I believe this is one of the great flaws that exists in this particular bill.
The issue that I have with this bill, and these are definitional issues, is the definition of who can be the commissioner for these disclosures. As I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition will seek to make that person the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory through the proposed amendments, and there is a reason for that. Under the current structure, the commissioner could be a public servant, and if that is the case, then ‘sometimes complaining about Caesar to Caesar’ not working is a very relevant and real observation.
I draw members’ attention to the comments made by the Chief Minister, immediately prior to the luncheon break, where he attacked the Leader of the Opposition for talking about known offences of paedophilia, were criminal matters that should be reported to police and, indeed, they should be. However, I do wish to point out that, under the legislation that we have before the House at the moment, it contemplates whistleblowing on criminal acts as well. Although we would hope and expect that a person who became aware of that reprehensible crime against children - the sexual abuse of children - would report that matter to police, there is capacity under this legislation, should a person see fit, to use this instrument to bring the matter to the attention of someone else, if they do not have, for argument’s sake, confidence in the police.
That is another important option for people, because there could be a good reason that a person would not want to report a matter of that nature to the police. I will give you an example - and I stress that I am not aware of anything, this is purely a hypothetical example - but what if the person complained about was actually a senior police officer? Where would that person go? If you report it to the police, one would hope that the police would have sufficient integrity to investigate that matter, and I would expect that they do, but you could understand a person’s reticence in those circumstances.
The other reason I obtained the Hansard rush was for the to and fro which I participated in during the Chief Minister’s debate. I am glad that the Hansard rush picked up the interjections I made as the Chief Minister attacked the Leader of the Opposition about the issue of paedophiles. There was an exchange during that between myself and the Chief Minister, where I said that there could be other circumstances in which a member of the police force may choose to use this legislative instrument. The example I point to was the interjection I made: ‘Tell us about the phone call that Clare Martin made to the Police Commissioner about an alleged paedophile’. I made that interjection because if there was an investigation into a paedophile’s activity and a police officer formed an opinion that information had been leaked about the investigation, as a result of poor activity by a police officer on the investigation team, then you could believe that the police officer would be concerned about the structure surrounding the investigation.
I remind honourable members, I believe it was in 2004, that the Chief Minister at the time, Clare Martin, telephoned the Commissioner of Police one evening, on the basis of a rumour she heard, and sought a briefing from the Commissioner regarding a paedophile who was under investigation and who was personally known to the Chief Minister. At that point, the Commissioner made a decision to give her a briefing; he spoke to the Chief Minister. If a member of the police force then wanted to make a statement, or pass on some information about information leaking from a police investigation, one could well understand that police officer’s reticence or reluctance to pass on that information.
Where do they go, in cases like that? We do not have an ICAC or a CJC in the Northern Territory. We do not even have an administrative appeals tribunal. Where would a police officer go if they had that type of information? A briefing had already occurred at the very highest levels of government regarding that matter. This is exactly the type of legislative instrument that is required in these instances.
Without reflecting on the propriety, or otherwise, of that phone call between the Commissioner of Police and the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, I imagine that if the Commissioner for Disclosures under this legislative instrument was the Commissioner of Police, or some other person within the executive arm of government, you could understand why there would be some nervousness on the part of police officers, who are inside that executive arm of government, to report or disclose the matter. Clearly there was a leak from the investigation. How do I know that? Because the Chief Minister said at the time that she had heard a rumour. She had made no attempt, as far as I am aware, to find out the source of that rumour or to describe to Territorians what she did to track down that rumour. I am not aware of any steps by the Commissioner of Police at the time to try to find out what the source of the rumour was.
However, there was clearly a leak from one of the most sensitive investigations in the Northern Territory’s history, and it reached the ears of the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister, rather than sitting on her hands and trying to trace the source of the leak, responded to the leak by ringing up the Commissioner. The Commissioner had a choice when that telephone call was received; he could choose to brief the Chief Minister - that was his call - or he could have told the Chief Minister it was inappropriate for him to comment. Considering the closeness between the individual who was under investigation and the Chief Minister, one would have expected that would be the result. However, that was the Commissioner’s call, and I do not want to reflect on that decision anymore.
However, there was a leak from inside the investigation. The leak was inappropriately dealt with by the Chief Minister at the time. If there was a police officer who knew about the leak or the source of the leak in that investigation, where was that police officer going to go? There is nowhere for that police officer to go, if they form the opinion that the internal structures were no longer sufficient to trace down the leak. It would have been a criminal offence to have leaked that information from the investigation. I am not sure what the results of that investigation were; perhaps the minister would care to enlighten us.
By allowing any public official to become the Commissioner, you are not actually following the spirit of this legislation. There are, as organs of this parliament, several officers attached to this House: the Auditor-General; the health complaints ombudsman and the Northern Territory Ombudsman - who are essentially the same person. They report to this House; they do not report to the government of the Northern Territory, despite the fact that their reports come through ministries. One would hope that there was a vehicle where a person could make a public disclosure, such as the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory – a third party, independent person, not attached to the Executive. This would make me more comfortable with the structure of this legislation.
If you have Caesar as the person who is reported to, you find yourself within the auspices of the quote which I mentioned earlier: ‘sometimes complaining about Caesar to Caesar does not work’. I suspect that if the Executive formed part of this process, people would be more reluctant to blow the whistle than they otherwise might be. Whilst I realise that the legislative instrument before this House seeks to protect whistleblowers from reprisals, what is said in legislative instruments and what is practiced may be two different things. If you look at the history of whistleblowers in this country; they suffer for their choice. It is not a decision I would take lightly at all.
Elements of the reprisal legislation will create a criminal offence. To demonstrate a reprisal you would have to demonstrate some form of intent, or mens rea, on the part of government; when you go through the processes, there has to be a person who leads the reprisal. If punitive action is taken, for example, a person is transferred against their will, you actually have to identify the individual who is engaged in the reprisal, rather than the department itself, in my understanding of how this legislation works. I suspect that would not be an easy thing to achieve, from an evidentiary point of view.
For this reason, I urge honourable members to turn their minds to the amendment which concerns making the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory the Commissioner for these forms of disclosure. The current legislative instrument anticipates that the Administrator will appoint the Commissioner, on the advice of his council - Cabinet, in other words, and you can track that back to the Chief Minister. Ultimately, it will be the Chief Minister who makes the decision on who the Commissioner will be.
If the Commissioner is a public servant, then I am not satisfied that the intent of this legislation has been captured; because it has not. This legislation is supposed to give comfort. If I am sitting there in the public service, looking up the food chain, and I am aware of something which looks, smells, and tastes like corruption, and I discover that the Commissioner - the person I am ultimately expected to turn to in this issue - is not an independent person, but a person who is ultimately appointed by the Chief Minister, then you could understand a decision not to make a disclosure.
This is a matter of great importance. I do not want to engage in the blame or who did what debate and who has or has not produced the best legislation. We have this bill before the House now and it is for us to consider. I believe the amendments the Leader of the Opposition is bringing to this bill are sound and well considered, they are the result of best practice and they are improving what is already a good idea.
I hope that the government does turn a benevolent eye upon the amendments proposed by members on this side of the House. It is about improving the quality and standard of transparency of our government. I hope that this legislative instrument is passed as the best practice model, and not just some run-of-the-mill model. I hope that it does better than other legislative instruments, designed to improve transparency, have done in the past.
Those of us who have used the freedom of information legislation, brought in by the Australian Labor Party government in the Northern Territory, have discovered that you get back massive search bills and, often, all the reasons why you cannot look at documents, or documents with large sections blacked out that look like a World War I soldier’s letter to home from the trenches – by the time it got there, it is mostly black lines and cut out pieces. I hope that this bill will introduce a form of transparency which is better than that. It will not at the moment. It will go some way to improving the lot of whistleblowers in the Northern Territory, but it will not become the best practice model.
Madam Speaker, I urge government and honourable members to turn their minds to the issues I have raised, specifically to give Territorians a best practice model.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General on the Public Interest Disclosure bill. The legislation establishes a practical, fair, and easily understandable system of disclosure about improper conduct of public sector employees and others. This is not to imply such misconduct routinely occurs in the Northern Territory.
Overall, NT public servants are conscientious, impartial, and hard-working, but we need to ensure that an avenue of protection exists for people to refer anything they believe is a problem. People who take this step deserve our full support and assistance. They are taking a brave step; one that could have implications for their career and personal life.
As federal Cabinet Secretary, Senator John Faulkner, said at the recent launch of a major project into whistleblowing in Australia:
I consider that the framework the Territory government has introduced and which is being debated today, will help these people come forward, anonymously if necessary, to report what they know and start the process of resolving the problem.
Government recognises that whistleblowers want their complaint to be handled professionally, independently, and by an organisation that has the power to solve the problem. Whistleblowers want legal protections to stop workplace bullying or intimidation following disclosure. This is about providing a process that genuinely improves government accountability and transparency. It is also about affording natural justice to those people who have a complaint levelled against them. As a basic right, they deserve the opportunity to respond to allegations and put their side of the story to an independent investigator. It is hard to do that through competing media headlines.
I look forward to seeing the federal government’s proposed new whistleblower protections, and anticipate that they will pick up some elements of this Northern Territory model which has adopted some of the best components of earlier schemes introduced around the country. I am pleased to support this next step in improving the most open and accountable government in the history of the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am quite keen to have a chat on this whistleblowers legislation, as it is called. Like the Opposition Whip, I am quite dismayed that it has taken the government, since their 2001 election promise, seven years to initiate this legislation. You would think that after seven years this government would have a fair idea about exactly what they want included in the legislation, and that it would be best practice legislation.
I was quite alarmed to hear the Treasurer commenting in the media, saying, it is ‘middle of the pack’ type legislation; it is neither the best nor is it the worst. I believe that is reflective of the government as a whole. It is certainly reflective of the poor minister whose job it is to introduce that legislation. I do not think anybody in this place would say that the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is the worst minister that we have in this country - not by a long shot. Considering the number of Labor governments that we have around in Australia, and particularly when we see some of the headlines in New South Wales, the federal parliament in Canberra, in Victoria; practically every Labor jurisdiction has some pretty serious duds when it comes to Labor ministers.
Neither could it be said that the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is leading the pack. In other portfolios, he is showing that he comes towards the back end of the pack rather than the front end of the pack. Irrespective of that, when you look across the other side and see the talent that he is up against there, he is actually in front of the pack. It is a strange phenomenon.
In the context of this Northern Territory government, he is quite a good minister, and good on him. I do feel sorry that the minister has been given the job of ushering this legislation into parliament, because it is, as the Treasurer said, ‘middle of the pack’, average, mediocre type legislation. There is nothing particularly exhilarating about this legislation, in fact, it is all rather, as the member for Araluen said this morning, it is like getting a big present and finding, after you pull away all the paper and the flashy bits, that you have a pair of nose hair clippers inside with a little congratulations card on it or something like that. It is not living up to its hype.
Ms Carney: We have come to expect that.
Mr TOLLNER: We have come to expect that on a whole range of things. You do not listen to what this mob says, you look at what they do. When you actually analyse this legislation, and I have to admit that I have not gone a long way into analysing it, but I have read information from other people and other organisations who have analysed it – very respected organisations.
In 2005, the Australian Research Council, which is a very well respected organisation, conducted a significant review into elements that would compromise what they term: best practice legislation for protection of public interest disclosures by public servants. Whilst this government’s bill measures up, to some extent, against many of the key areas in their review, there is significant room for improvement, based on the comprehensive research that the ARC did.
I will go through the key weaknesses of the government’s position, when held up against the Australian Research Council’s best practice guidelines - we are not talking about middle of the pack, amateurish or mediocre type guidelines; these are best practice guidelines. There are no time frames to release progress reports to the discloser during an investigation. The discloser does not get any feedback on what has happened with their complaint anywhere through the process.
Disclosures cannot be made by or about former members of the public service, when that disclosure is in relation to their former role. It is also curious that the Electoral Commissioner is exempt from disclosures being made about that position. All the information submitted to or created as a result of a public disclosure is exempt from our freedom of information act. Shame. If this information is proven to be correct, it should be publicly available.
The ARC study revealed that of the public employees surveyed, 61% witnessed serious wrongdoing, with only 28% actually reporting any wrongdoing. Of those who reported, only 1% went to an external body, usually the media, and generally when every other avenue had failed.
The ARC also say that government contractors are not included in any of the disclosure categories. The government’s bill allows public officials to blow the whistle on public officials of government agencies engaged in corruption or malpractice. However, the bill fails to address that the Territory government awards contracts worth millions of taxpayers’ dollars, to private or semi-private organisations, to provide goods and services on behalf of the government, and there is no real level of protection, under this government’s bill, for an employee of a private company who blows the whistle on corruption and malpractice in that domain.
In a submission made by the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights to the House of Representatives inquiry into whistleblowing, they made the point that:
I cannot understand why private external bodies - private contractors - are not included in this legislation.
Dr Burns: What is the name of that lawyers group again?
Mr TOLLNER: It should be a group that is familiar to members on the other side, it is the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights. Something I am sure you have heard of. Now in relation to …
Dr Burns: Are they the ones that appeared for Mr Haneef?
Mr TOLLNER: I am not sure, they may well have. The Northern Territory government forwarded this bill over a month after the ARC publication was finalised. Yet, it has still managed to leave out any avenue for the person to take their disclosures to the media as a last resort. The Attorney-General’s office, in their submission to the House of Representatives whistleblowing inquiry, stated that:
Queensland is considered to have the most comprehensive whistleblowing legislation and it is held up as one of the best models in Australia. Despite this, there have been cases, such as the Bundaberg Base Hospital, where the only way the problem has been rectified is for the public servant to stick their neck out and go to the media. Some high profile cases, where after attempts to rectify the problem through internal means, prove that disclosure to the media is the only option to change those damaging practices.
One case is that of ‘Doctor Death’. Nurse Toni Hoffman began making complaints about Dr Jayant Patel in 2004 but was told by hospital management that she was the one with the problem. She was even accused of being a racist. She eventually took her case to a member of the Queensland parliament, who raised the matter under parliamentary privilege. It was not until she revealed the information to a News Limited journalist that a full investigation into Dr Patel and the Bundaberg Base Hospital occurred. Dr Patel was linked to about 87 deaths at the Bundaberg Base Hospital from 2003 to 2005. If Nurse Toni Hoffman had not gone to the media, that case would not have made it into the public domain; she suffered badly.
Another case involves Australian Customs. Mr Kessing, a customs employee at Sydney Airport, wrote two reports that were rejected by customs officials, which included the issuing of security passes to illegal immigrants and people who did not even exist. After his report was rejected, he passed the information on to the media, but as he was an employee of the Commonwealth agency, he was not protected for his disclosure. While supported by his colleagues, he was the only one that went forward to the media as he was close to retiring and was less concerned with safeguarding his career and security. It is a terrible situation when employees have to determine who is closest to retirement or leaving the job to decide who will blow the whistle.
There is the case of Milton Orkopoulos. Gillian Sneddan helped expose her New South Wales MP boss, Milton Orkopoulos, a convicted paedophile. She first raised the allegations with Orkopoulos and then with another MP. She was assured the matter had been dealt with but when she was contacted by police after more allegations she realised that nothing had been done at all and began helping police.
For her efforts, she was eventually made redundant. Her colleagues, however, who sat down and said nothing, who shut up and stayed silent, kept their jobs and received promotions. What a shameful situation. These are a few examples.
The government’s bill has gone a little way to ensuring that the Commissioner reports to the discloser. However, it only requires that the person making the disclosure is contacted in very limited circumstances and with very few definite time frames. The bill requires the Commissioner to report to the person making the disclosure in the following circumstances: within a reasonable time after the completion of the investigation; and if the Commissioner decides not to investigate a disclosure, that decision must be reported to the whistleblower within 14 days.
If a person stuck their neck out and reported malpractice or corruption within their organisation, they would want to know that it had been received and when they could expect to hear an answer. Reporting requirements are especially important in cases where an investigation finds there is no wrongdoing or no reason to take further action.
There is a need, highlighted in the submission by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Office to the House of Representatives inquiry into whistleblowing, for a discloser to be reassured during the whistleblowing process, that the investigation is being taken seriously and that:
These points highlight the fact that the Treasurer is right when she says this is ‘middle of the pack’ legislation. It is nothing to get excited about ...
Ms Lawrie: I did not say that.
Mr TOLLNER: I am afraid you have not had the …
Ms Lawrie: I was talking about the government’s broad policy settings.
Mr TOLLNER: You said it is ‘middle of the pack’, which to most people means it is average, middle of the road; there is nothing special about this at all. It is obvious to anybody who takes even the most cursory glance at this legislation that this is average …
Mr Knight: Have you read it? You have not read it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Daly asks whether I have read this legislation.
Mr Knight: You have not read it.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Daly, I am standing here talking about this legislation ...
Mr Knight: You said you had not read it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly.
Mr TOLLNER: No, what I said was I have not done a great deal of investigation into this legislation. I did not say I had not read it. You do not have to read much of this legislation to know it is average. The Treasurer stood up and said it is ‘middle of the pack’ legislation, meaning it is somewhere between the worst and the best legislation; it is average legislation. You could not even go that extra step to ensure - just copy it from some other jurisdiction that was seen as best practice. You could not even go that far.
Of course, the reason we know that they did not go that far is because they are not interested in whistleblowers. This is all about smoke and mirrors, is it not? This is throwing bread to the masses …
Ms Purick: Let them eat cake.
Mr TOLLNER: Let them eat cake – there is nothing nutritious in it. It tastes all right, but there is no substance to it. We all know there is no substance to it; the Treasurer has identified that. She has quite publicly and openly said there is nothing in it ...
Ms Lawrie: No, you were not there.
Mr TOLLNER: Pick up the newspaper today and read what you said. Your quote is there: ‘middle of the pack’. That does not mean best practice. That does not mean that the government is interested in protecting whistleblowers, because you are not ...
Ms Lawrie: Yes we are. The legislation clearly does it.
Mr TOLLNER: I have just gone through it. Where is the protection for somebody going to the media? Why are contractors not involved? Why are there no time frames for the commissioner to report back to the whistleblower? Why can disclosures not be made about former public servants? Why is all this information exempt from the freedom of information act? Why does the public not have a right to see what is going on? As the member for Port Darwin said, this is about Caesar trying Caesar - complaining to Caesar about the problems that Caesar has made. We all know this is not about the public good, openness and transparency; this is about hiding things away, while at the same time putting up some smoke screen to say, look what we have done, we are wonderful? It has only taken us seven years’ ...
Ms Purick: Nearly 20.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, nearly 20. Actually, the member for Araluen did a great little walk down memory lane. Terry Smith, was it? Goodness me, we have gone through them all - Terry Smith, Maggie Hickey …
Ms Purick: Brian Ede.
Mr TOLLNER: Brian Ede, Clare Martin. She only had six years to do the job and she failed. At least Hendo - what has he been around? – 12 months this term …
Mr Wood: One hundred days.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, I remind you that members in this Chamber need to be referred to either by their electorate or their title. In the case of the Chief Minister, that is how you should refer to him.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Speaker, I do apologise. The current Chief Minister - 100 days in the job. He is acting decisively, and he has put up some middle of the pack legislation, which we are now debating. We know it is middle of the pack, the Treasurer said it was ‘middle of the pack’.
Ms Carney: Fool that she is.
Mr TOLLNER: We would not say that in here, that would be unparliamentary. She is being very honest, which is good to see; it is a welcome change.
I cannot see much point debating this nonsense, because that is what it is - nonsense. This is about smoke and mirrors, throwing the masses a bit of cake - something tasty but not exactly nutritious; it is average stuff.
A member: Tofu legislation.
Mr TOLLNER: Tofu? I think tofu these days is made of soy beans that, I believe, are genetically modified, so it has actually been improved; I do not think there is any improvement in this legislation at all. As the Treasurer says, it is ‘middle of the pack’, average, mediocre, totally flawed.
This government has been around for seven years, it has been talking about whistleblower legislation and this is what they have come up with. Good on them, I suppose it is a start. It is lacking in a whole range of different areas, I suppose we will see what comes of it.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I have some comments on this legislation. I will start with someone who is a little more experienced than I am; the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Prof John McMillan, who has been around for a while, and who said on 26 September 2008 that ‘whistleblower laws should provide an opportunity for public servants to go to the media in exceptional circumstances’.
Straight off the bat. This person, who certainly has some credibility around Australia, one would hope, because he is the Commonwealth Ombudsman, not a Coroner or the Alice Springs Ombudsman …
Mr Tollner: The Commonwealth Ombudsman is not middle of the pack.
Mr BOHLIN: Maybe he is not the middle of the pack. I quote again:
With the Bundaberg Hospital case; that nurse, who is a fine, upstanding, Australian citizen, put everything - her entire family - at risk. Do you think she did not go to bed at night wondering, now that she had started the process, and the process was failing her, that someone may want to come and fire bomb her house? You are talking about someone with a lot more money than the nurse; it would not be untoward of him to perhaps drop in a little of money to someone, and say, let us go and wrap this one up, let us really put some fear into her so that she does not come after my livelihood anymore. Thank God, from what we know, it did not happen.
We do not always make laws about what happens, but also to ensure that it does not happen. We have laws about murder, because we do not want them to happen. We do not intend for them to happen, but they do happen. There is a need to ensure that these laws are the best possible in practice. I am speaking from this side of the floor, and from what I believe the community would expect: the best possible practice from the governing authority in the Northern Territory, which happens to be that side of the floor.
Did it fall short? Obviously to some degree it has. It would be best practice for it to pick up the ball and run with some amendments, because if you can see the need to change, you should make those changes. If you want to be credible and be seen as a good government, you will need to make changes. Accept that you are not going to get it right all the time. You need to be able to protect the people who have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against the bullies of our society, who wish to run their own campaign and do their own wrongdoings. In this case it was a doctor, who was well and truly in ‘la la’ world in his ability to treat people, and he was causing great harm. Would you not want to make sure that we protect that, so that we do not have that happen here? That to me is fundamental, and it needs to be fixed.
Giving no time for feedback is another concern. We have the fine FOI legislation that was introduced by your team, which is there so that we can see some honesty and integrity - to see through the smoke and mirrors, and which actually has time constraints and time controls. There are mandatory reporting bills, and if you do not comply with those mandatory reporting bills, there is an opportunity to take redress on those. Why not cut and paste that little part from FOI legislation, which you drew up, slot it into the whistleblowers? It is a simple cut and paste. I am sure there is someone with the computer skills to do that. It is common sense that we put in time frames - we must do it.
It is foolish to think you can leave it open-ended. Particularly when you have someone with the intestinal fortitude to step up, make a claim, and on reasonable grounds believe it is true, then once they have said their piece, they are out there hanging on the clothesline – on the Hills Hoist – they are out there to dry, for the wolves to tear apart, if not protected properly.
Do you think they go to bed at night thinking: have I done the right thing by my family? Should I just protect my own family, instead of the interests of all these other people? That is why we need a time restraint, so people can be advised at regular intervals of what is going on. So they know where it is at. So they do not have to keep looking over their shoulder, asking, what shadow is that chasing me, was that the person who I have just reported on? I do not know what is going on, because no one has told me, and months have gone by and no one has told me anything. I am strong enough to report an incident that is serious, be it corruption or something, and now I have to live in fear, because no one is telling me anything.
The police department does their best to keep victims informed about what is happening with their crimes, within their incidents. Why not add a little to this legislation to ensure that the people who are strong enough to stand up know what is going on with their complaint. They need to know what is happening. You may not want everyone to know what is happening, but they are the ones that came to you with information, surely a regular update is possible. Set a time frame - be it every 60 days or whatever. I am sure we have some indications of what it should be and keep them informed. They are your important source. They are your potential evidence to some wrongdoing. So treat them like that. Treat them with the respect they deserve and in this case it is treating the Territory people with the respect they deserve.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I will not take up too much time. They have articulated the opposition’s view and I know that it will be fleshed out a lot more in the committee stage.
I want to address the areas of health, minister, and where the whistleblower legislation will be with health and, particularly, with health professionals. There is some concern that allied health professionals, such as physiotherapists, will not be covered by this legislation. I know there is also some concern from nurses. The scholarly paper says that whistleblowing represents a dilemma for nurses. It strikes at the heart of professional values and raises questions about the responsibilities nurses have to communities and clients, the profession and themselves. In its most damaging form, whistleblowing necessarily involves a breach of ethical standards, particularly confidentiality. Despite the pain that can be associated with whistleblowing, if the outcomes are improved professional standards, enhanced outcomes, rectification of wrongdoings, and increased safety to patients and staff in our health services, then the ends definitely justify the means.
I am happy to table that for you minister if you would like to have a look.
Obviously there are some concerns within the health sector with whistleblowing legislation. I draw the attention to where the whistleblower legislation stands within the allied health sector. Are they exempt from that or not?
I will outline from Douglas and Jones’s Administrative Law, where it talks about protecting whistleblowers, and I quote:
There is no doubt about that and, in principle, the opposition do support whistleblowing legislation. It has taken a long time to bring it to the Territory parliament - 20 years we have heard. We proposed a bill and it has taken seven years for this government to bring it forward. It is better late then never, but we do have some concerns. I know the Leader of the Opposition will raise those in the committee stages of this bill, which I believe we will get to shortly.
I would like to hear what the minister says about protection for whistleblowers who go to the media. The member for Araluen raised the concerns of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. Obviously, governments perform very well under public scrutiny, not just internal scrutiny - public exposure and in the mass media. We all tend to lift our game when exposed, particularly governments. We have seen it time and time again with this government and, no doubt, previous governments as well. That is something that should be seriously considered. My colleagues will discuss that throughout these committee stages.
Finally, regarding clause 5(3) of the bill, substantial maladministration; it is very curious. The member for Araluen also raised this:
And it goes on to list three points.
I thought that substantial maladministration would be a serious issue. I thought maladministration would be serious in itself. However, it is articulated in this section, ‘conduct that includes action or inaction of a serious nature’. I am just wondering why that is actually included in the bill when I thought that maladministration would be serious on its own; I thought it would be self-explanatory.
We support whistleblowing legislation; we always have. It is good to see it brought into the Territory parliament. We believe there are a number of amendments that need to be applied to this bill to give it the strength, to bolster it right up, to actually protect those people who have serious issues in the public sector with their superiors.
It is there to protect employees from reprisals. A whistleblower may be reporting conduct of a criminal nature but, if they were to take that report directly to the police, would they be protected from discrimination? That is a very good question and I am interested to hear the minister’s response to that. Perhaps the minister and his advisors can answer that question.
Madam Speaker, I do not want to take up much time. We have a couple of other speakers before the minister’s reply, and we have a long committee stage ahead. We do support whistleblowers’ legislation; let us make that very clear. However, we believe that it needs a series of amendments to bolster it up to be effective legislation. In principle, we support it, and I am looking forward to the committee stage.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of concerns that I ask the government to address.
During Question Time today, I heard the Chief Minister talk about open, honest, transparent, and accountable government. I hope that he is genuine when he addresses this House and uses those words, and that he would want to, along with his colleagues, cover and look after people in the Northern Territory and give them the ability to raise matters of serious concern regarding public spending and matters of public importance.
There have been a number of occasions, in governments in all states in Australia, and many places in the world, where there have been servants of the government who have either, by deceit or by omission, misled ministers, CEOs, and many other people. These people, who have their own agendas, often conspire with others to ensure that this information does not get out. It has even happened in this House where particular ministers have made claims that they were not informed of various issues and things that were going on in their departments.
However, if you were in one of those departments, and on a daily basis you were working with colleagues, seeing and doing things, and then you came across issues that were not so wonderful - that were not so great, what would you do?
Without someone like an independent commissioner, perhaps the Ombudsman or someone who is actually an officer of the parliament, as opposed to a public servant, one might ask, where do I go? I am sure many of us have been to barbecues and functions, where you talk to various people who are aware of these sort of issues that arise and they do not know where to go through fear of losing their jobs or reprisals, be it psychological, physical or financial; they do not have the ability to go to someone with their concerns and get these things addressed.
I have been in situations, for instance, in police cases, where these things drag on. People who are witnesses in these issues and who have the information at their disposal, unfortunately, get cold feet. As time goes by, these people either do not want to give an account of what they saw, or through various things that have occurred to them, people they have been exposed to or information that has been passed onto them - along the fear brigade, who want to propagate this atmosphere that you cannot go and tell anyone otherwise terrible things are going to happen to you - these people pull out from time to time or they just forget some of the very pertinent aspects of what they saw.
It is well known in our community, for instance, in police prosecutions, that if you want a case to go cold, simply find the right person and get it delayed. In the end, people lose interest, they lose their drive and they start to fear what will happen to them. More people have the ability to get hold of them and put this fear into their mind. People get cold feet and either withdraw their information and their services, or they simply leave the Territory.
I am sure there are those opposite that have gone to barbecues and have this sort of information about what is happening. I will give an example. Recently, with the power failures at the Casuarina substation, I was out the front of my office and a person came along who was, until recently, employed by Power and Water as a maintenance officer. He came and spoke to me and he said: ‘I have been trying to tell people about this for quite some time, in fact, for quite some years of the sort of maintenance that needed to be done but, unfortunately, nobody listened’. He asked me: who do you go and tell? The guy is not a public servant now; he is no longer employed by PAWC, so he is not covered by this legislation.
This goes on in the health and police portfolios, and I am sure there are people on the other side of this House who get this sort of information from time to time. However, what do we do about protecting these people? How do we as a community, and how does government give these people the confidence to go to someone and have their matters, concerns and complaints heard in a timely manner, be informed about what is happening in a timely manner, so that they are part of the process and not feel left out?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I suggest that the government might like to look at that and consider some of the issues that we have raised so that these people do have the confidence, and that is all people in our community, no matter who they work for or where they are from, so they can come forward, and people can have an open, honest, transparent and accountable look at what is going on. I repeat that the Chief Minister said that this is the way his government is and I ask him to be true to his word.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions. The member for Nelson, talked about the three main aims of the bill: to protect people making disclosures, for example from reprisals, and many members spoke about that; to provide a mechanism for people to make disclosures; and provide for those disclosures to be investigated in relation to proper conduct of public servants and/or public bodies.
It is important to say that the definition of ‘public bodies’ is quite wide and it is not just about Northern Territory government, it includes Power and Water and a whole range of bodies that are associated with government, as well as local councils. A public body includes public service agencies, local government councils, the police force, a university, a public hospital, government owned corporations, bodies established under legislation for a public purpose, and other prescribed bodies supported by government funds, all controlled by the Northern Territory. There is wide coverage.
To clarify a very important element; any member of the public can make a disclosure to the commissioner. That is the first thing. You do not need to be a public servant to make a disclosure. You could be an employee of a private contracting firm, and if you have evidence about collusion, corruption, substantial maladministration, you can make a disclosure under this legislation to the commissioner. Similarly, if you have been an employee of an agency or an entity like Power and Water, as the member for Sanderson alluded to before, there is nothing to stop you making a disclosure about certain things, even though you are longer an employee. That is important to put on the record.
Improper conduct, has been defined by a number of members, is defined as conduct in the performance of official duties, that would, if proved, either constitute a criminal offence or reasonable grounds for dismissal, including bribes, improper inducements, other forms of dishonesty, inappropriate bias, breach of public trust, misuse of confidential information; or involves a substantial misuse or mismanagement of public resources, a substantial risk to public health or safety, a substantial risk to the environment, or substantial maladministration, which specifically substantially and adversely affects someone’s interest.
The government had a purpose when it chose ‘substantial maladministration’. We did not want trivial issues being brought forward in terms of maladministration. As a member pointed out, there is a spectrum of maladministration. It could be that someone goes on morning tea every day when they are supposed to be at their desk taking telephone calls. That could be maladministration, but what we are after is significant maladministration. If that were to lead to a calamitous set of events, of course that would be significant maladministration. Government decided to draw a line and say it will be significant maladministration.
Much has been made today and verballing the Treasurer on what she had to say about where this legislation sits in the spectrum of whistleblower legislation across Australia. I believe that the Treasurer was alluding to this being solid legislation. There is a whole spectrum of legislation around Australia and there are outliers, in what other jurisdiction’s legislation contains, and reporting to the media after the process is one of them. New South Wales is the only one jurisdiction in Australia which has that. There are a multitude of models that we are looking at, and the Treasurer was saying that this is solid legislation that takes the best elements, the most workable elements of legislation into the Northern Territory.
If the gentlemen in suits opposite would give me a – am I just missing something, that they are all in suits today, or is it just suit day so they can wear a white ribbon, or has this been an instruction from the chief commandant or the second-in-command that all the dukes have to wear suits today? Anyway, I will leave that up to others to decide.
Ms Carney: Is that a jacket you are wearing?
Dr BURNS: The Blues Brothers opposite - that is what I will call them. I will quote Ken Parish, who said today …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Although Ken Parish has been a former member of the Labor Party and a former member of the Legislative Assembly on the Labor side, he is often very critical of the Labor Party and this Labor government in particular. He said on 105.7FM today:
He also said:
But there are always perfectionists in terms of this sort of legislation. He continued:
It is very important to note that we have a commissioner –the whistleblower commissioner – who does have powers, is able to investigate these matters, and will be resourced to do so and bring them to conclusion. That commissioner is an independent statutory office holder which is very important to note.
There are many members who have spoken so I hope I can get through in the 25 minutes that I have. I would like to try to respond to everything that people have said, although in some cases it was very repetitive, particularly in relation to the member for Fong Lim, it was like an echo of the Opposition Leader.
The Leader of the Opposition voiced his disappointment about the time taken, and he said about the Treasurer, and being mediocre, etcetera. I believe I have addressed that issue. He lauded the Commonwealth and the Whistling While They Work study that was done under ARC funding. I believe that many members have forgotten or might not be aware that the Commonwealth does not actually have whistleblower legislation. They do have some discrete parts within some legislation but they do not have integrated, uniform whistleblower legislation with a whistleblower commissioner that oversees all those complaints.
It is a furphy to say that the Commonwealth has got some sort of wonderful model. The Commonwealth really has no model. They are going through a process of deciding which model they are going to have. While some members talked about the Commonwealth Ombudsman advocating for people to be able to go to the media after a process, I say that Commonwealth officers are not always in agreement about that. The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department is supportive of measures to encourage whistleblowing, but they say an effective whistleblowing regime will also assist in the protection of sensitive government information by providing an avenue for people to raise concerns outside of their agency, rather than resorting to measures such as leaking information to the media. I am advised that the Commonwealth Public Service Commissioner is also opposed to protected disclosures to the media.
There is only one jurisdiction in Australia that has protected disclosures to media. I am advised that this is very rarely used, and people who wish to make disclosures to the media usually go directly to the media. Government has a problem with disclosures to the media. Even though people may have gone through a whistleblower process and disclosing, and at the end of it they are not happy. There may be many reasons why they are not happy.
Under the New South Wales legislation they are then allowed to go to the media. As I am advised, those people have indemnity from civil and criminal prosecution. You could have the scenario where someone has made a disclosure about someone in an agency - it could even involve an outside entity such as a company that is contracting with government - if they are not satisfied with the outcome of that disclosure, they can go to the media and make that disclosure, and they are protected. Yet, the person, or set of people, they have made the disclosure about within a particular department, do not have protection or an avenue, civilly, to take that person to court on defamation.
Similarly, a private company, that may have been the subject of that disclosure, can be defamed in the media and they do not have recourse. That is the advice that I have had. That is why government is not going along this particular route, because we believe in natural justice.
Moreover, the opposition has talked about having contractors within the sphere of whistleblowers’ legislation. I ask the opposition: you foreshadowed these amendments late last week, but you dumped them on my desk late yesterday, saying you wanted to put contractors into this legislation - have you consulted with the TCA or the HIA? Have you consulted with any contractor who contracts to government what you are going to do? If government was going to do that, we would be consulting.
This is an opposition that is so arrogant and so after a headline that they think: this sounds good. Let us go with contractors. Yes, let us put that in. We will dump it on old Burnsy’s desk the day before, and he will be saying: What the hell am I going to do with that? I already know what I am doing with that; we are not going along with it, because you have not consulted. I would like to be a fly on the wall the next time you meet the TCA, the HIA and other contractors who contract to government because I will be telling them: ‘Did you know that the opposition wanted to pull you in to this?’
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: ‘Were you consulted by the opposition before they did that?’ No, I do not think so, Madam Speaker. This is a government that is consultative.
On the issue of contractors, government believes that the essence of the contract, or the relationship with contractors, is in the contract itself and the oversight of that contract. Nonetheless, if there is someone within a private company …
Mr Tollner: You are crook!
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Calling the member a crook ...
Mr Conlan: He did not call him a crook, just crook.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Continue please, minister.
Mr Tollner: He is dodgy.
Mr Conlan: Suspicious.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, within the context of this legislation, if there is someone within a private contracting firm who believes that, there are individuals or processes within government allowing maladministration, corruption - whatever you name it - there is capacity to make a disclosure to the commissioner and they are protected under this legislation. This government believes that is adequate.
There was much said about Toni Hoffman and what a brave woman. Everyone in this House thinks that woman suffered, she made disclosures; it was very brave of her. She fought against the odds. No one on either side is disputing that. Once again, there has been a misunderstanding, whether deliberate or because people have not read the legislation or looked at the Queensland legislation closely enough. My advice is that within the Queensland system there is not a whistleblower commissioner per se; in the case of the health department, complaints are dealt with internally by the department. Obviously, there was a …
Mr Tollner: She was abused by Queensland Labor. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
Dr BURNS: I am talking about the process here, member for Fong Lim. Please afford me the courtesy to have my say. I sat, generally - 95% of the time – quietly and listened to what people had to say. Give me my 95% as well.
The important point I am making is that, under our legislation, there is going to be a whistleblower commissioner - a statutory officer - different to Queensland, where there is an internal departmental process which obviously failed Ms Hoffman; failed her and failed the system. That is important to note. To make a comparison is a bit wayward.
Regarding the issue about the customs officer, I have all ready alluded to the fact that there is no whistleblower commissioner within the Commonwealth system - once again, a major difference.
The issue of Milton Orkopoulos, the Chief Minister dealt with that; that was a very serious matter. The Chief Minister talked about the historic days and that we are introducing whistleblower legislation.
I pick up on some of the comments made by the member for Araluen, when she talked about the 20 year history. She went back through Terry Smith and Brian Ede and all the rest of them, saying, this is 20 year history for the Labor Party to introduce this legislation. I took what the member for Port Darwin said: let us not get into a blame game, you did not do this but we are doing it.
I believe it is important to remember that those Labor leaders, I am sure, would have been introducing private members legislation all the time during those 20 years, which was rejected by the CLP. I take your point. We had a little waltz through memory lane, but the memories are the memories - let us not make them all one sided. This is a government which is introducing whistleblowers legislation, it is very important legislation; the opposition is being critical of it, but I am putting the case of the reasons why - and I am prepared to do it during our committee stage amendments – we will not be going along with the majority of the amendments that have been proposed by the opposition.
The member for Araluen raised the issue of substantial maladministration; I believe I have spoken about that. The member for Araluen also raised the issue, and quoted Chris Warren from the allied performing arts group union, that it is important that matters are not dealt with behind closed doors and talked about protected disclosures to media, he said, you cannot protect the public interest in private. Many of these disclosures will be dealing with sensitive and confidential information by government. I believe it was the member for Port Darwin who hit the nail on the head when he said that the disclosure of any of this information would ordinarily constitute an offence. These disclosures are very serious, and government, like any other entity, whether it is a private company or other entity, needs to protect confidential information in the way it does business and in the way it forms various directions for government; I believe it is natural that the government does that. One only has to look at the private sector to see how jealously it guards intellectual property, marketing strategies, the data around those strategies, and commercial dealings; government also requires that protection.
The Information Commissioner will have the investigative capacity and powers under the act, and the expertise to carry this out. The media does carry out investigations, or is able to carry out investigations, but if you read the legislation carefully, the whistleblower commissioner has the power to go in to not only the public sector, but also the private sector and require documents and other matters, if there is a disclosure and there is enough evidence to back it up, to move down that investigative path. This is something that journalists and the media do not have and that is why I have confidence in the legislation that is being put forward.
One of the interjections I made on the member for Araluen, I said that you were not prepared to discuss your own bill. The member for Araluen introduced a private members bill in 2006 - and good on her - but any reading of the bill that the member for Araluen put up in 2006, is vastly different to the amendments that the opposition are putting up today.
I am advised, and I can see, that it did not set up a framework for investigation or further action; our bill has done that. It had a much narrower scope on which parts of government could be investigated; it did not include police, TIO, the Tourist Commissioner or Territory Housing. Without dwelling on it, it talked about the Ombudsman, who was the nominated officer to do the whistleblower, and when they could take over an investigation, but it was not very specific about when that might occur.
We have the CLP come in, after a private members bill, it has gone right away from what the member for Araluen proposed originally, it has latched on to the government bill and put its amendments, which is fair enough - that is what happens in parliament. However, it is just a little strange that they have moved away from the member for Araluen’s bill. I sense that the member for Araluen is a little on the outer these days and there are other agendas running and basically, her work, and very hard work in the past, is not being recognised by the men in suits over there, the ‘blues brothers’.
The member for Nelson flagged that he wants to discuss some of the issues in the committee stages and he talked about judging the results against the objects of the act. He said that he some concerns. He talked about complaints against MLAs, which, in the legislation put forward by government, will be handled by the Speaker. Madam Speaker, I am very comfortable with the Speaker handling, with the discretion and wisdom of the Speaker, such complaints against MLAs. I believe it is important, because as MLAs we do have a privileged position; we are elected and although we are nominated as public officers, we have a very unique role within the system.
The member for Nelson talked about promptness and time frames. When we come to the committee stage, I will be acknowledging some of the concerns of the member for Nelson and members opposite and I am flagging and I am advised that through regulations we can address some of those issues.
Picking up on statements made by the member for Drysdale who talked about police feeding back information to witnesses and others involved in cases. As far as I am aware, there is no statutory requirement for police to report within a certain time frame. Each investigation will be different from another, depending on its complexity and nature, but I believe it is reasonable to expect that there will be regular feedback, without saying you will do this within 30 days, that within 14 days, or that within 7 days. I believe it is reasonable to say that there should be a continual flow of information back to the complainant. There should be explanations at the end of the process as well. I believe that is a reasonable suggestion, but I am advised, member for Nelson, that we can accomplish that through the regulations.
I have already spoken about some of the issues the member for Port Darwin raised, such as, that it would otherwise be committing a criminal act, I believe were his exact words, he talked about protection from liability. He did acknowledge that governments must do business in a confidential fashion and I thought that was paradoxical and contradictory, in that he was saying, why have we quarantined the whistleblowers process from FOI? I am pretty sure that is the question you asked. That is part of the amendments that are being praised by the opposition. I contend that this information is sensitive and confidential, and it is paradoxical to say it is those things on one side, but then you can have an FOI process and get it out in the public arena through another. That is paradoxical.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order; Madam Speaker! I just direct the minister to my speech when it is reported in Hansard and you will find I did not actually make that observation.
Dr BURNS: If that is the case, Madam Speaker, I do apologise to the member.
It is part of the opposition’s amendments to have the investigative process of the whistleblower commissioner opened up to the FOI process. I am outlining why government will not be accepting that amendment. It is exactly as I have stated.
The member for Port Darwin talked about Caesar to Caesar and basically Caesar judging Caesar and he believes that is not the way to go. I am saying that the independent statutory officer who will be the whistleblower commissioner is exactly that. It is not the same as the Queensland system where the complaint, if we are talking about the Bundaberg issue, was dealt with within the department - that is certainly Caesar to Caesar. It is not something that government will be doing. We have an independent officer.
Mr Elferink: That is not what the legislation says.
Dr BURNS: I was a little amazed - and once again I do not want to be verballing the member for Port Darwin - but he talked about a situation where a person cannot have confidence in the police. I have every confidence in the police; government has confidence in the police. As the member for Port Darwin says we do not have an ICAC like some larger jurisdictions, but we have the police Ethical and Professional Standards Command. I have every confidence that those officers, with integrity, wide ranging investigative powers, and skills in sensitive investigations, would get to the bottom of any police corruption, maladministration or criminal behaviour within police, in terms of the whistleblower legislation.
Mr Elferink: I was talking about the investigation into the leak which led to the Chief Minister ringing up the commissioner.
Dr BURNS: I beg your pardon?
Mr Elferink: Are you going to tell us about the investigation that was done into the leak?
Dr BURNS: As the Chief Minister said, you were briefed by the commissioner yourself. I was not at that briefing.
Mr Elferink: That has nothing to do with it. There was a criminal act committed and there was no investigation.
Dr BURNS: It was a matter exhaustively questioned in the last Assembly. You have your point of view, I have mine.
Mr Elferink: There was a criminal act committed and there was no investigation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Indirectly then, the member for Port Darwin is reflecting on the commissioner and the police force, even though he said he was not in his speech; I believe that is what he is saying if you follow through his assertions.
Mr Elferink: Well, good. Let us have an inquiry.
Dr BURNS: I will change the subject.
Mr Elferink: I am sure you will.
Dr BURNS: The opposition has maintained the position …
Mr Elferink: Bring it in, let us have inquiry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The opposition have maintained the position of wanting the Ombudsman to be the whistleblower commissioner. This was something that the government considered very carefully. The Information Commissioner was chosen, because in a small jurisdiction like the Territory, not unique, but unusual, the Ombudsman fulfils two roles, as the Leader of the Opposition and others said. The Ombudsman has that role and is also the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. We have seen, at times, when the Ombudsman and the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner have been the same person, and had to change hats. There is nothing illegal or improper about that, but it does create difficulties. That is why it was decided that the Information Commissioner would be the whistleblower commissioner, and the Information Commissioner can direct things to the Ombudsman or the police.
I believe it was the member for Greatorex who asked a question about police. He asked that if someone went directly to the police would they have protective disclosure, and the answer is no. What happens is the person makes the disclosure, either …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that the minister be allowed additional time to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, colleagues. My advice is that the person making the disclosure, usually makes it to either the whistleblower commissioner or the CEO, who is then bound to report it to the whistleblower commissioner. The whistleblower commissioner can refer it on, either to the Ombudsman, if it can be more appropriately dealt with by the Ombudsman, or the police, if it involves criminal matters. If it is a police matter, the person who has made the disclosure is protected under this legislation.
A number of members opposite also asked a question about nurses. The member for Greatorex asked a question about allied health professionals. Any member of the public can make a disclosure and be protected, but if they are a public servant and they make a disclosure, they are also protected. However, they are also protected if they are in the private sector and make a disclosure.
Nurses who are working on contract in our hospitals - who might be contracted to a nursing agency that provides nurses to the hospital – who observe any wrongdoing while working within the hospital, that is encapsulated in this bill, can make a disclosure and are also covered by the legislation. That is the advice I have on that particular matter.
The member for Fong Lim raised and rehashed – it was almost like a re-run of the Opposition Leader’s speech …
A member: Just in case you did not hear it the first time.
Dr BURNS: Just in case I did not hear it. I did hear it, and I was particularly interested in the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, obviously, a favourite group of the member for Fong Lim.
The member for Drysdale talked about the case in Queensland, which is your right. I just wonder whether you might have strayed somewhere into sub judice in some of the things you said, member for Drysdale. I suppose everyone will be looking at the Parliamentary Record in relation to that, because I believe the case involving Dr Patel is still in front of the courts. The member for Drysdale talked at length about Toni Hoffman and her trials and tribulations. I have followed that up. He talked about police feedback. I have also addressed that issue.
Member for Greatorex, I have addressed the issue you raised regarding allied health professions being covered if they report directly to police. You mentioned the dilemma of nurses; that, basically, they might look upon whistleblowers as being a breach of confidentially. That is the tension that exists. On one side, there is Toni Hoffman and her disclosure as a nurse in Queensland, and on the other side there are nurses with professional concerns. It is a difficult issue but in such serious instances such as what happened in Bundaberg Hospital, it is really incumbent and the duty of people to report, although it was very difficult for Toni Hoffman to do so.
The member for Sanderson reiterated what the Chief Minister said about open, honest and transparent government. He talked about conspiring to hide information, the Ombudsman and the ability to go to a statutory officer. The whistleblower commissioner will be a statutory officer. He said people do not know where to go currently. There will be an education campaign regarding this legislation, the commissioner, and how people can report to the commissioner. That is very important. However, the instance that he raised of someone who was previously an employee of Power and Water, if they felt they had information - a disclosure - they are covered under this legislation. I am disappointed that the member for Sanderson had not read the legislation or listened to the second reading speech carefully enough to realise that.
In summary, I welcome the contributions by all members. We will be moving into committee stage. I am prepared to go into detail about the amendments moved by the opposition, but I believe I have already foreshadowed, in a number of cases, the position of the government in relation to this. I can only reiterate that it makes things very difficult to bring these amendments forward, the written part of them, and give them to government the day before we are debating. These are complex issues. I have given the amendments attention, but I say that government will not be supporting them, and I am prepared to reason why, when we get to the committee stage amendments.
I thank members for their contribution, and I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Ms CARNEY: No, we do not support it being taken as a whole.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, please pause while I seek advice.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, that is right. We are going to take the bill as a whole.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Madam CHAIR: Is leave granted for the Leader of the Opposition to move the following amendments together - 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5 in relation to clauses 6, 7 and 8? There being no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr WOOD: Can I get a clarification, Madam Chair? If members would like to discuss an earlier clause before this is passed, can we do that now before that motion?
Ms CARNEY: Yes, because you want to and so do I.
Mr MILLS: These are matters that precede the issues I will be attending to, so I would be quite happy for that to occur.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I believe that is …
Mr WOOD: I believe the member for Araluen has a clause before mine.
Ms CARNEY: And you do too.
Mr WOOD: I ask the member for Araluen if she wants to go first.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, member for Nelson, and thank you, Madam Chair. Before getting to the substantial amendments, and as a result of the minister’s answer in his reply, I would like to revisit clause 5, in particular the definition of ‘substantial maladministration’. A definition is provided, as follows:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, once again we have the lawyer, the member for Araluen, trying to verbal me in what I said. In response to the member for Araluen saying that she did not want to see a sliding scale for maladministration and that she did not agree with the government defining maladministration and substantial maladministration, I gave an example of what I believe would be a minor peccadillo of someone not being at their phone to take a call when they were expected to be there. Now the seriousness of that increases if someone …
Mr Tollner: Can I just ask what a peccadillo is?
Madam CHAIR: Is this a point or order?
Mr Tollner: No, I am just seeking clarification on what a peccadillo is.
Dr BURNS: There is a dictionary there, member for Fong Lim. It comes after ‘O’. There you go.
A member: Do you not know what it is?
Dr BURNS: I know what it is.
Mr Tollner: Go on what is it?
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the minister is trying to address the question, please.
Dr BURNS: I sat down after that, if they want to be serious, I will be serious.
Mr Tollner: You are the one that mentioned it.
Ms CARNEY: Given that you did not, I believe, fully answer that question, can you give other examples of maladministration that might be of concern to Territorians and their government?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I am advised that there is actually a body of law regarding what constitutes substantial maladministration, so I am not going to stand here outlining cases. I am advised and was advised in my briefings in relation to this bill, that there is a body of case law in relation to substantial maladministration - that would be a matter left to legal minds.
Ms CARNEY: I assume from your answer, minister, that the short version is ‘no’. I raise this because the wording of the section refers to ‘substantial maladministration of a serious nature’. The government spin has been that this will protect Territorians for blowing the whistle on what is commonly understood, particularly by public service employees, as maladministration, misconduct and so on. I am concerned, minister, that the government is apparently not concerned with maladministration that is not serious or substantial. We take the view on this side, and I believe our fellow Territorians would also, that misconduct is misconduct and maladministration is maladministration.
In terms of the commonly understood definition and I can go further than that one, from the Concise Oxford Dictionary: ‘to administer inefficiently or badly; faulty administration; inefficient or improper management of affairs, especially public affairs’; hence our point. You have said to the community: we will protect you, if things go wrong, if you see things that are seriously bad, let us know. ‘Seriously bad’, in a commonly understood parlance, might be misconduct that does not fulfil your definition. We inquire whether you are concerned about that?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I have been given a few examples in relation to what constitutes substantial maladministration and has been found in other jurisdictions to constitute that. One is substantial poor personnel practices based on alleged discrimination or procedural flaws. Another is an equine influenza outbreak being the result of administrative failure. These are issues that have been put to me as examples of substantial maladministration.
Ms CARNEY: With respect, you are deliberately not hearing me. That would have been a good answer to a different question. My question was about maladministration that is not substantial or not serious. You would be aware surely, minister, that the term maladministration has a fairly wide definition. It could include things like delay, incorrect action or failure to take action, failure to follow procedures or some would say the law, failure to provide information, inadequate record keeping, failure to investigate, failure to reply, misleading or inaccurate statements, inadequate consultation, broken promises – I suspect broken promises mean a lot to you. They are just some of the things that could fall, and do fall under the definition or the commonly understood term of maladministration. You and your government seem to not worry about the things I have mentioned, but only to worry about things that are higher than that, as evidenced by your use of the word substantial and serious in the definition section.
I ask you one more time, and I will not pursue it after that, are you concerned about that and, if not, why not?
Dr BURNS: The definition of substantial maladministration is based on the New South Wales/Queensland definition.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Chair! He is many things but he is not entirely stupid. I did not ask you, minister, to provide me with the definition of substantial maladministration. The question is about maladministration. Can you answer that and could you find it, could you dig deep within yourself and see if you can answer the question I asked?
Madam CHAIR: There is no point of order. The minister is trying to answer your question. Minister, you have the floor.
Dr BURNS: You gave up a whole range of your definitions which included inadequate record keeping but where do you draw the line in terms of inadequate record keeping. Did someone record the wrong date by mistake record in a database or have a decimal in the wrong spot purely by error? Where are you going to draw the line? We have drawn the line at the definition of substantial.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, I believe that was the question that the member for Araluen was asking. Where do you draw the line? That is a question you have not answered. Where do you draw the line?
Dr BURNS: I answered it, member for Fong Lim. If you listen again, it specifically substantially and adversely affects someone’s interests; that is the definition. I cannot enlarge on it beyond that.
Ms CARNEY: One final question, Madam Chair. Minister, I believe the Ombudsman in the UK has fairly diverse powers. One of them, if memory serves me correctly, is that the Ombudsman has a wide brief and can investigate maladministration. There is not, to my memory, the definition served in the relevant legislation of substantial maladministration. Maladministration, as per the Oxford Concise, and I am quoting, is: ‘faulty administration, inefficient or improper management of affairs’.
Minister, on the basis of that definition and the fact that maladministration does have a fairly wide definition, it seems from your answers that your government is apparently unconcerned and unwilling to protect whistleblowers who report faulty administration, inefficient or improper management of affairs. You should be ashamed of yourself. I do not expect you to answer the question. Why start now? It is disgraceful if you come into this Chamber and say that you accept that maladministration of a certain type is fine. If that is the government you want to be a member of - go your hardest. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Dr BURNS: The sorts of issues that the member for Araluen is alluding to are best dealt with through systems within the public service. There may be instances where matters are referred back to a CEO regarding inefficiencies that are not substantial maladministration. These are disciplinary matters that would be best dealt with in an operational sense within agencies. This bill is about having a system for disclosure about behaviour which is substantial, which is at the same level as criminal, dismissible, or at that level - not the petty little look over the shoulder to see whether you have put the decimal point in the right place ...
Ms CARNEY: We are not talking decimal points; we are talking faulty administration. You think that is okay. You are an idiot.
Dr BURNS: I did not say that.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I believe you have a question, before we go back to the Leader for Opposition’s amendments.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question relates to clause 6(1) which states the definition of a public body is:
(i) that is supported directly or indirectly by government funds or other assistance; or
Minister, do we have the regulations that would describe all the bodies which come under this act?
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Nelson for his question. My advice is that this will be defined within the regulations.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I could say fair enough, but I would like to know who is in and who is out. Take clause 6(1)(g)(i) which says: ‘that is supported directly or indirectly by government funds or other assistance’. Sometimes the government gives Freds Pass Reserve money to help build a grandstand. Would that be a body which would now come under this legislation?
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, the intention of government would not be to include a body like Freds Pass Reserve. Possibly, you know more about their funding than I do, and what level of assistance they receive from government. I am under the impression they also receive some funding from Litchfield Shire Council. Is that right? I suppose they do raise funds or have revenue through other sources. It is a complex matter in terms of the funding, and it seems like it is a composite funding model.
Mr WOOD: Freds Pass comes under the Litchfield Shire, so you could say that it comes under the requirements of this bill in relation to local government. Consider a different body, for instance, the local Landcare group. It gets some money from the Territory government, and it also probably gets money from the Commonwealth government. Would the members of that Landcare group be subject to this particular legislation?
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, it is a good question. My advice is that, under this legislation, it would be considered a private body and it must acquit the funds to the funding agency.
Mr WOOD: That just confused me. Clause 6(1)(g) says: ‘a body (whether incorporated or not) prescribed by regulation’: It does not say whether it is private or otherwise; it just says that it is supported directly or indirectly by government funds or other assistance. I will give another example, you announced in the budget you were funding the Environment Centre, would they be included in this legislation?
Dr BURNS: At this stage, no bodies have been prescribed, but it would be dependent on the individual body. It is almost like a case-by-case basis, member for Nelson, but certainly that is something we will have to consider.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, what concerns me is who is going to make the decision about who is in and who is out? I thought that the Environment Centre fitted perfectly into here. They are getting $140 000 of taxpayers’ money; they fit into this classification. If the government is not going to have a list of all those bodies, and it must know all the bodies it gives money to. If it is not going to define that now, then it possibly leaves itself open to accusations of favouritism. For instance, if you put one body in and leave another body out and both receive funding from the government, someone is going to say, that is maladministration. I know they are not going to say that, but they might say, this is unfair. Before this legislation is assented to, will the government put forward a list of all those bodies that come under this legislation? Otherwise, I believe it is legislation that has no end.
Dr BURNS: To some extent, clause 6(g) is on a case-by-case basis. I understand that Victoria has the capacity for prescribed bodies in their legislation, and this legislation has been modelled on Victoria, but has not prescribed any bodies; it is a case-by-case basis. When I worked with the Heart Foundation, we received some government funding, but as a percentage of our total funding that we received from other sources, it was a small percentage. There is a spectrum of different bodies, different non-government agencies, that have a spectrum of funding and funding sources.
You have mentioned Freds Pass and the Environment Centre, and I have mentioned a non-government health organisation, like the Heart Foundation. This is something where we are going to have to look at other jurisdictions and see what happens. Member for Nelson, there have been no bodies prescribed and that has to be something that is considered as part of the regulations.
Mr WOOD: I do not want to drag this on too much, but it appears to me that this is a clause that is just sitting there. I ask another question regarding independent schools, which would receive a lot of money, both from the Commonwealth and the Territory. I presume that, under this legislation, teachers and others who work for government schools are included. Independent schools would certainly be supported directly or indirectly by government funds, and the Territory would have some ability to exercise control over those schools, through perhaps curriculum and standards. Would the teachers and staff of an independent school be able to use this legislation if they felt there was maladministration?
Dr BURNS: It is a deep question, member for Nelson. Some of the bodies we have discussed are the subject of grants for specific purposes. I believe it is a case-by-case basis on what those bodies are funded for. It is an issue we will have to work through, and we will look at other jurisdictions for guidance in this particular matter. I do not believe it is a matter of reinventing the wheel; a little wisdom and judgment is required.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I ask you to comment in relation to this section, and I refer to a letter from Lucio Matarazzo on this legislation. In a letter to the Director of the Policy Unit, Department of Justice, on 26 August 2004, he said:
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I know Lucio has been writing many e-mails over the last six to nine months, which I am sure members have received. I believe his proposal is casting the net too wide. The focus of this legislation is on government and bodies associated with government and it comes down to where you are actually going to draw the line and say, these ones are in and that one is out. I believe the legislation is pretty clear about who is included in most instances. As you have pointed out, member for Nelson, there is scope to prescribe other bodies on a case-by-case basis, some wisdom will have to be applied and we will need to see what happens in other jurisdictions.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, to clarify, if we are dealing with substantial maladministration in relation to funds, the government might give X non-government organisation $1m to carry out its functions for the year. A person within the public service might see a large amount of money being used inappropriately within the public service - it might have been given to a contractor that did not deserve it for whatever reason - and there was substantial maladministration of that $1m within the public service. Here the taxpayers’ same $1m is being given to an NGO. Do you not think that it is still taxpayers’ money and we do not want it misused? Yet, the person in the NGO cannot whistleblow because they do not have that protection. The only hope they have is to go to the police, if they have enough evidence, whereas the person in the public service, who is dealing with $1m, has some protection. Do you not feel that it is a little unfair at the present time?
Dr BURNS: At one level it comes down to the way in which the granting body for the funds actually has their agreement with the non-government organisation and if there are systemic failures within that granting body, that is a government granting body, and it might not be corruption, it might be substantial maladministration, there is the mechanism within the act to address that issue. There are other mechanisms in the way government grants monies to these organisations. I can think of a number of instances where state, territory and federal governments have suspended or withdrawn funding from organisations, and what has happened with OARS NT is a case in point.
Madam CHAIR: Is leave granted for the Leader of the Opposition to move the following amendments together: 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5 to clauses 6, 7 and 8? There being no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, my apologies for the start. I assumed that those other matters had already been lodged to be cleared before I moved forward.
Madam Chair, I move opposition amendments 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5 standing in my name.
Amendment 5.1 provides for a person, organisation or corporation, contracted by government, to be treated as a public body for the purposes of this act. It touches on some of the issues raised by the member for Nelson. The object of the exercise is recognising that it is the administration of public funds. That is the issue to be responded to and protected if those funds are misused. I predict the arguments will come – they have already been foreshadowed - that contractors may be offended at the suggestion of the Attorney-General by such a proposition. I am quite sure, however, that all involved in the administration of services contracted by government are interested in ensuring things are done well. It is for the extreme cases, where there is maladministration, that there is the capacity in this bill for contractors that are currently not included.
We recognise that there was nearly $19m in tenders awarded by the NT government in the month of October. For the month of September there was more than $22m in tenders awarded. As it stands, this bill does not provide any protection for those workers who witness misuse of public funds or equipment by companies and organisations that are contracted to provide goods and services to the government.
Attorney-General, consider the object of the exercise which is to provide additional protection for the administration of public funds.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain for foreshadowing his amendments and speaking about them. I have grave concerns that this amendment was dropped on government late yesterday. This is something that has been proposed without any consultation whatsoever with industry. The Leader of the Opposition should look at vendor disclosure, and I believe the member for Nelson knows this one, and that industry, particularly those involved in commerce, take these issues very seriously and want to be consulted on them. I do not believe it is right to drop these amendments on the table and expect them to be passed today, just on that basis.
There is still capacity for an employee of a private contractor to make a disclosure and be protected under the legislation. However, if that person sees a systemic failure in government at a departmental level, or corruption, bribery, etcetera on the part of a government department, they have the capacity to make a disclosure.
In relation to contracts per se and contractors, the actions of private contractors are matters for the contractual agreement. What, when, and how it is supplied are points covered in the contract. The legislation already enables the bodies supported by government funds, where control can be exercised by the Territory over a body, to be captured under the act by prescribing such a body, pursuant to clause 6(g), an employee of private companies who make a disclosure about a public body, can take action against reprisal in the courts and the act intends to protect persons who make disclosures about improper conduct of public offices and public bodies.
The focus of the legislation is about public officers, public servants, and public bodies. The opposition wants to enlarge it beyond that. Government is saying no. At this stage we are saying that our focus is on what is in the bill. Basically, as with all legislation, this will be reviewed on a cyclical basis. Other proposals can come forward when government, as a matter of process as we do with all legislation, reviews this particular bill.
I reiterate, that nurses, who are working for a nursing recruitment company that supplies nurses contracted to government and its hospitals, who see something that constitutes misconduct under the legislation, are able to report it.
Mr MILLS: I understand that is the case with contract nurses, but could you describe what sort of coverage an employee of St John Ambulance, for example, contracted by the Territory government, have if they identify corruption, that may be collusion between two parties - the private and the public, are they protected?
Dr BURNS: I was a bit diverted there, member for Blain. I got the gist of your question. In short, St John Ambulance could be covered, if it was to be prescribed as a body under the section that the member for Nelson was talking about. I believe it is clause 6(g). That could occur; it could be prescribed. If an employee of St John Ambulance, in the conduct of their duty whilst they were at the hospital with a patient, saw something or became aware of something that really constituted misconduct, they could make a disclosure to the commissioner and be protected under the legislation.
Mr MILLS: I note, in your response to the member for Nelson, that there is the capacity, perhaps, to include such bodies in clause 6(g). Would it be more appropriate then, to go down the path that the opposition is proposing, so that we have it quite clear that the object of this is to ensure that public funds are protected? We are not worried, necessarily, about who it is, but that it is public funds that are being administered. This notion received significant support in the research project.
I am wondering whether the Attorney-General has assessed that research and reflected on the capacity to craft something that covers all the possibilities - which seem to be vague as we throw up ideas - that could be included. Would this not be a better way of ensuring that we are able to include these matters that have been raised, perhaps, with St John Ambulance or the Environment Centre? We are not sure. Maybe this is a way of doing it.
Dr BURNS: I reiterate that to some degree it is a case-by-case basis, given the spectrum of funding and the different organisations that exist, which receive not only Northern Territory government funding, but also Commonwealth government funding. Our aim with this legislation - I will not use the word ‘capture’ – is to encompass those major organisations, that are either a part of government or closely associated with government, and other organisations, as outlined in clause 6(g), and apply some criteria through regulations to determine which bodies are going to be in and which are going to be out. We are not in the business of throwing a wide net over every organisation which receives a pitiful amount of Northern Territory government funding and that may receive substantial funding from elsewhere, or substantial funding through their own efforts of raising and generating funds.
Mr MILLS: I take from the comments that government will go no further at this point, but it would consider, as we move forward, whether it is extended?
Dr BURNS: Within the parameters of the act and clause 6(g) in particular, and the framing of legislation, the government will be looking at the criteria of which organisations should be prescribed, if any, and which are not prescribed.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I need a point of clarification here. The Opposition Leader is bringing forward some amendments and if I have a problem with the amendments, am I allowed to ask the Leader of the Opposition, or do I have to direct the question through the minister?
Madam CHAIR: It is entirely up to the Leader of the Opposition should he wish to reply to your query.
Mr WOOD: The Leader of the Opposition might – he is hoping to get some practice in for a later job.
My concern is with the first couple of clauses. I will take clause 6. The opposition is inserting:
(k) a person, organisation or corporation contracted to provide goods or services to a department or Agency.
I will give an example. The Legislative Assembly might have a lawn mowing company called Fred’s Lawn Mowing Company that has the job to maintain the lawns. Under this amendment, that would now become a public body. If we go to the second clause, under clause 7, public officers:
Under this, the person who is mowing the lawn would become a public officer. The company is now a public body; the person working for them is a public officer. Does that mean that they now fit under the section of the act where a complaint can be made from within the public service about that employee or company? That is the bit that worries me. Where do you draw the line between, if someone thinks the company has substantial maladministration, can the company be reported to the commissioner, now that they are defined as a public body?
Mr MILLS: The answer to the question is governed by the degree that they are providing the service to government - it is at that point. That is what the focus is upon; the administration of the public funds – the discharge of the contract to government.
Mr WOOD: Right, I think I understand that. I am more worried about this person who is mowing the lawn. He is not a public servant, but all of a sudden he gets brought into this legislation, which was originally intended to look at people within the administration. Maybe it is not a problem in practice, but I am a little unclear as to whether it has, as they say in certain parts of the world now, some collateral damage that was not intended. It is just these particular clauses, as they are, that I have some concerns about, and obviously the government is not going to pass them anyway, but I believe the intention is good.
To some extent, Leader of the Opposition, some of this issue relates to 6(g). We have this grey area, where we have this legislation, but we have not defined who or what will be picked up in it.
I do not support those; not because the intent is unreasonable, but I am not really sure that we might be picking up some collateral damage that was not intended, and it may need a little refining.
Mr MILLS: Member for Nelson, we will go back to the matter of substantial maladministration. Let us say the lawn mowing contractor uses the contract and never mows the lawns here, but finds some way of mowing lawns in another country on a fact finding tour; there is the capacity of being responsible for discharging a duty that has been contracted to the government and there is an opportunity to raise that question. I take your point, but it is focused on the administration of public funds, and I believe the benchmark is guided by potential maladministration.
Mr WOOD: I suppose it is bleeding obvious that if the lawn is 3 foot tall, you are not going to pay him, because he has not done the job. It is interesting being able to question the Leader of the Opposition. I did not mean - sorry, minister. I support most of the amendments, but I do not support those parts of the amendments, because I believe at the moment that needs some more detailed analysis.
A member: Three months, six months.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendments 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5 be now agreed to.
Amendments negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move that amendment 5.4 standing in my name be supported. When we look at the list of reference to this Act, it says: ... ‘to a public officer does not extend to any of the following’ and it includes the Electoral Commissioner. It strikes me as the odd one out. In seeking support for this, I argue that, due to the nature of the role, there ought to be the ability of that position to be held accountable for public interest disclosures.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, as a matter of principle in the legislation, those who have been excluded from the act, such as the Ombudsman and other statutory office holders, have been excluded from the act because their statutory officers report to this parliament, and the Electoral Commissioner is one of them. That is the rationale for the Electoral Commissioner to be in there and I believe that it is quite a solid rationale. I understand that there is a variation in other jurisdictions, but that is why the government has decided to exclude the Electoral Commissioner from the Act.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.4 be now agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.6, in relation to clause 8. This clause allows for a person to make a disclosure about an MLA, directed to the commissioner as well as to the Speaker.
Madam CHAIR: It is actually clause 7, amendment 5.4. I beg your pardon, Leader of the Opposition. It is amendment 5.6, clause 11.
A member: 5.6? The Commissioner and Speaker, yes?
Mr Elferink: This is the Speaker.
Mr MILLS: This allows a person to make a disclosure. Our amendment allows a disclosure about an MLA directly to the commissioner as well as to the Speaker. The way government has described this, it does not that additional protection afforded someone who wants to go directly to the commissioner and there is concern about ‘may’. There is no obligation for the Speaker, notwithstanding the current Speaker, but we are not crafting this around personalities, it is around office. There is no obligation for the Speaker to refer a disclosure about an MLA to the commissioner. There is no obligation for the Speaker to inform the discloser about their decision, which is a concern, or to inform them about what they are going to do about the matter or how they are going to refer it.
This could be a concern if the Speaker is from the same party, notwithstanding the fine personalities and the nice people we have here now. It is not about personalities, it is about the position and establishing the proper system, for protection. This could be very discouraging for a member of an MLAs staff, for example, or a member within a minister’s department. Heaven forbid, that they may be so burdened by what they see and they need to go and make some disclosure and need the appropriate protection.
We only have to look as far as what happened with the staff of Milton Orkopoulos. There needs to be that additional avenue opened up, so there is that additional protection provided. The object of the exercise is justice and not protection. If it is true whistleblower legislation, this amendment is going to ensure that we provide every opportunity for the business we have seen with Mr Orkopoulos never to be repeated.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain for his amendment and raising this issue. There are a couple of aspects to this. The complaint that comes before the Speaker might be trivial or vexatious. In that case, one would expect the Speaker to exercise discretion about trivial or vexatious matters. One would also expect that the Speaker - irrespective of who is there currently, the Speaker is a very important position within this parliament, irrespective of what party that Speaker comes from; they might be an independent - would operate with discretion and integrity.
I am also advised, Leader of the Opposition, that this could possibly impact on the aspect of privileges within the Assembly.
Mr Elferink: By what mechanism would it impact on privileges?
Dr BURNS: That is the advice I have. To compel the Speaker to take a certain action would possibly be a breach of privileges, as I understand it. I will just take further advice.
I am advised, member for Port Darwin, for the commissioner to have that warrant or power over MLAs, I have been directed to Part 4, 36(1)(a) on page 23, where it says:
That is the advice I have, member for Blain. Apart from the aspect I have raised that there is a conflict there.
Mr MILLS: It is simply the inclusion of – it could be the Speaker or the commissioner. It is for the commissioner to determine whether it is vexatious or frivolous. However, there may be a range of cases or matters that we cannot conceive at this moment or discuss as a hypothetical case. Nonetheless, surely, there could well arise a situation, as we have already described, where the need for another option is made available. Sometimes, power corrupts and, to prevent that occurring - and it could occur in this environment; to provide an MLA with the opportunity to go, not just to the Speaker, but to the commissioner as well. There is a just cause for this.
Dr BURNS: Member for Blain, I can only reiterate the advice that I have; that the appropriate mechanism within the legislation is that it to be the discretion of the Speaker, so the Speaker may refer to the commissioner.
Mr ELFERINK: Just for the record’s sake, more than anything else. Minister, whilst I agree or appreciate the general immunity to which you referred in your answer, the fact is that we, as members of parliament, express our will through these instruments. We are, quite regularly, happy to subordinate ourselves through these instruments, to the laws of the Territory, in the same way, for arguments sake, that the New South Wales parliament has subordinated itself to ICAC. ICAC can look at the conduct of members of parliament quite readily, because it is the will of the parliament that that power should be granted to the membership of ICAC to achieve that result.
At the more extreme end of the scale, if I commit a speeding offence and I get booked for it, I have still subordinated myself to the young constable who is booking me for speeding, by an organ which is the Traffic Act of the Northern Territory.
I do not accept that it would, necessarily, because we have certain privileges, be beyond the scope of this legislation to subordinate us to a public servant or a commissioner to do a specific job. This is equally so for the Speaker. The Speaker could, quite easily, by the will of this parliament, be compelled to be subordinate to a legislative instrument because it is the will of this House. Consequently, I do not subscribe to that argument. I am prepared to do some more homework into it. However, that is an aside.
The fact is that the capacity in the legislative instrument, as you brought before the House today, for the Speaker to exercise their discretion in an injudicious fashion, has not been covered. Considering the party system we have, and the system by which we elect Speakers, there will always be a capacity for this system to retain a flaw into the future, which will not service the people of the Northern Territory well. That is a comment for the record.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Port Darwin for his comment. I respect his point of view. He has raised some very valid points but, on the basis of what I have outlined, government will not be accepting the amendment. I tried to make it fairly plain why government will not be accepting the amendment. I have no doubt that the member from Port Darwin will go and do a lot of study, and we will hear a bit more about this matter.
Mr Elferink: I want to really go into this matter. I will have a sleepless night worrying about it.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, with respect, I have some difficulty understanding the argument. When you look at a case, for example, as has already been described, why not provide another option for someone, in the circumstances as we have already indicated with, say, Orkopolous, where they may be able to go if they feel they are unable to safely and adequately make that disclosure and have that matter weighed and measured and responded to? I still do not understand the argument of the government. It troubles me that there is not this other option made available, and we are just required to trust, when that has occurred before and that trust has been savagely abused and misused. Why not provide that? Could you please outline your argument again so that I can be assured that these matters are being properly and sensibly assessed?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, first, as the Chief Minister outlined, the matter involving Milton Orkopoulos, a horrible matter, and dastardly and repugnant acts that were committed by him, are criminal acts, and if someone has a reasonable suspicion that a criminal act has been committed, particularly in the area of paedophilia, I believe that they should really be reporting that to the police. If someone came to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, irrespective of who they were or what party they belonged to, and made such serious allegations, I would trust that the Speaker would refer that matter to the police. If there were other issues raised with the Speaker that were substantial, not trivial or vexatious, the Speaker has the option to refer to the commissioner. To some degree we should have trust in our institutions and the people who are tasked with the responsibility of carrying and fulfilling those positions.
At any time, things can fall down when there is a personality involved, a recalcitrant. It does not necessarily have to be the Speaker, it could be a statutory office holder in another jurisdiction, not in the Northern Territory, but it could be a statutory office holder, a policeman, or a doctor working in private practice or in a hospital. Unfortunately, sometimes personalities play a large role in every walk of life, however, given the responsibilities and the sort of people who are attracted into this parliament, from both sides of parliament, I think we need to have trust in our Speaker.
Mr MILLS: Notwithstanding that, we should have, and we all endeavour to, and we are not talking about Madam Deputy Speaker, but the office. Minister, in the example you have provided, you said that a person who becomes aware of criminal activity, such as paedophilia, could go to the police. But in the example that you used, and in this specific case, they go unprotected - they do not have any protection. Of course, they can go - as anyone can go - but they go in this case without the protection that this bill is endeavouring to provide.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I have just been given a table which shows what happens in other jurisdictions. In South Australia, it is the presiding officer in terms of MLAs or MPs – whatever they are called in the jurisdictions. In New South Wales, it is the ICAC, and it can be the Auditor-General, and basically, in every other jurisdiction, apart from Western Australia, where it is the presiding officer, it is the Speaker. Predominantly, it is the Speaker or the president of the Legislative Councils, where they exist; that is the predominant model. As the member for Port Darwin alluded to, a jurisdiction like New South Wales has the ICAC, and I understand in Queensland there is also a corruption body which can take complaints against MLAs.
Mr MILLS: Well, it does not seem to be a particularly strong argument to say, the whole crowd is doing this and we are sort of picking the one that is least offensive. It should be weighed on the argument, not whether we are sitting in the middle of the pack. I am wondering whether your argument has been strengthened or challenged in any way by the Australian Research Council work. Have you had an opportunity to reflect on that and to see whether your position is, in fact, strengthened or challenged in any way by recent recommendations that have come through from the research project, rather than just look at a list and say we will pick the stuff in the middle?
Dr BURNS: Member for Blain, we are a small jurisdiction. I believe this is the appropriate way to go. I believe we need to trust the discretion of the Speaker to decide whether the matters brought before their attention are trivial or vexatious, or matters that need to be referred, in the case of criminal conduct, to the police, and in matters of serious misconduct, to the whistleblowing commissioner.
Mr MILLS: Therefore the argument is, let us not go down this path because we might cast an aspersion upon the member for Nightcliff. That seems to be an emotional argument and not a moral argument. It is based on personality and I do not believe that is a good ground to establish whistleblowers legislation; protection for those who want to stand up and be protected.
Dr BURNS: Member for Blain, you adjured, that is a good word is it not, before to take personalities out of it, to forget who is the incumbent, and I have tried to argue on that basis. You have brought it back now to the incumbent, so you are arguing in circles.
Mr Mills: You said we should trust the Speaker.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair. Minister, I have a problem with the Speaker being the only person that can take the complaint, because we are a relatively small parliament but large parliament’s have a lot more people than government. The Speaker normally, not always, comes from the government and I know of a case, in days gone by, even in this parliament, where I believe the Speaker may have upset someone in his own party and did not have his job for a short period of time.
Are you saying that this could not happen; that if a complaint went against a fairly senior minister in the government it could be very difficult, and may put the Speaker in a very difficult position, by having to decide whether they pass on that information any further? If it was a substantial maladministration case that was not passed on, one could say that the Speaker could be subject to that as well. However, if it was a minor case of maladministration, could it be brushed over due to political pressure?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair and I thank the member for Nelson for his question. These are valid issues that both the member for Blain and the member for Nelson are raising. The bottom line for me is that we need to have faith in our institutions, whether it is the Speaker of this House or members of the police force. We need to look beyond personalities. It could be asserted that maybe police do not investigate people because they are allied with the police - I dismiss that. I believe there are cases sometimes when people do not do the right thing, but the majority of the time, particularly at the level of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, where there are all types of scrutiny, including public scrutiny. I am prepared to have faith in our institutions and the people who are placed in those positions, given the calibre of people who are elected to these positions.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I wonder if we should be doing what the Victorian parliament did. It set up procedures for making a disclosure about a member of parliament. It is not a simple case of telling the Speaker. They have disclosing officers who are members of parliament. It has a fairly substantial set of procedures for making a disclosure about a member of parliament. Did the government look at the procedures of the Victorian model as a possible model for our own or did it believe that the model - you could say this is a fairly simple model; it is, the Speaker ‘may’ and that is about it. The Victorian model is more substantial.
Dr BURNS: I have heard the arguments from honourable members opposite and I understand their points of view. However, the government is determined to put trust in our institutions and the people who sit in those positions, and we believe that this is the appropriate way for our jurisdiction.
As I said earlier in committee stage debate, this legislation, as with all other legislation passed by government, will be subject to review. I believe that the government has shown that it is prepared to amend things if they are not working or require improvement. This legislation is no exception.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, can you take me through the vehicle a person would use to make a disclosure if the subject of the disclosure was a member of the legislative assembly and the Speaker. There was a fellow called Darcy, I believe, who was the speaker for the Queensland parliament and struck, unfortunately, from the same mould as Milton Orkopoulos, when it came to his predilections. Where would I go if I wanted to make a disclosure about that person?
Dr BURNS: My recollection is that if it is a disclosure about the Speaker it is made to the Chief Minister.
Mr Elferink: Perhaps I can help you. This is in clause 11.
Dr BURNS: I apologise to the House; that was done in error. I thought I read that if it involved the Speaker, it was to the Chief Minister. I will take advice on that. Clause 11 of the bill, is it?
I apologise to colleagues. I was in error when I said that if it was about the Speaker, it would go to the Chief Minister. I apologise. As the member for Port Darwin has clearly shown it is 11(1)(b). It is: ‘otherwise the commissioner or the responsible Chief Executive’.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand this much so far; I take it that I am to read those two clauses together, that if one does not work, otherwise, then I go to the commissioner or the responsible Chief Executive. The Chief Executive of the parliament is the clerk. Is that correct?
Dr BURNS: The thrust of the second part (b), is for general disclosures to the Chief Executive of the department, who is then obligated to refer it to the commissioner. In the specific case of the Speaker, I will check and take advice.
Member for Port Darwin, I have taken advice on this very interesting issue that you have raised. It may have been audible to you what the Clerk said; that for the purpose of administrative orders that it is probably the CEO of Chief Minister’s who is the CEO of the Assembly. I hope I am not misconstruing what the Clerk said.
The Clerk: A little, yes.
Dr BURNS: I am a little misconstruing, so I better get it right.
There is a spectrum of views here, member for Port Darwin. I have taken advice and I understand it will be possible to clarify this within the regulations. The intent of the act, in terms of the Speaker, is that the complaint should go directly to the commissioner.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. That is the answer I expected. I presume, in that case - and I am going to operate on the assumption that the Clerk is, essentially, the CEO of the department, because the ministerial structure is the same. You have a minister – in this case the Speaker, who has a ministerial role and has a department operating under her; last time I checked, it is called the Department of the Legislative Assembly. So, you then have a very senior public servant in charge of that department.
I read clause 11(1)(a) and (b) as two completely separate organs, without the capacity to relate to each other. If the disclosure relates to an MLA, other than the Speaker, then the report is made to the Speaker. I cannot reconcile that with ‘otherwise the commissioner or responsible Chief Executive’ if it is still referring to the MLAs. It just does not read that way. I suspect a court would struggle to find that interpretation.
Following the logic of this and assuming that what you said is correct; that those two sections are read together - not something that I can instantly follow - and the subject of the complaint or the disclosure is the Speaker, the discloser then goes to the Clerk and the Clerk goes to the commissioner. If that is the case, then your argument about privileges has just defeated itself. What you would find, even if it was the head of the Chief Minister’s Department - as you just described as the other option - even in that case it is still sidesteps the issue of privileges - that the report is being made to the commissioner. In that world view, if you take either of those two interpretations, then it must follow that the amendment being brought to this House is logically and substantially correct and deserves the support of this House in providing an effective and proper way to deal with what is otherwise going to be a flaw in this legislation.
Dr BURNS: I can only reiterate the advice that I have had; that it is within the purview of the regulations to clarify this matter. However, I say further to the member for Port Darwin, that a complaint against the Speaker may not necessarily relate directly to the functions of the Speaker in relation to the Department of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK: That is a bit of a long bow to draw. I was not going to respond to it, but I will. In the case of Mr Darcy who, if memory serves me, was the Speaker of the Queensland parliament. If he is engaged in, or if the Speaker is engaged in sexual conduct with children, it reflects on the duties of the Speaker. It is a massive oversimplification of the roles and the duties of the Speaker, if you are simply going to keep it within departmental guidelines. I do not think there is a departmental guideline that says you will not have sex with children, it is just something that you would assume the Speaker would not do.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, as with the case of Milton Orkopoulos, the case of Mr Darcy involved child sex abuse, and that is a matter that should be reported to the police. MLAs are in a unique position, because of parliamentary privilege and our positions; even more so with the Speaker. There is not much opportunity or another pathway, except to refer matters involving the Speaker to the whistleblowing commissioner.
Mr ELFERINK: I have made my point.
Amendment negatived.
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you are to move amendment 5.7.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, this amendment relates to how a public interest disclosure is made and it is an attempt to provide a check and a balance - quite well described by the member for Sanderson - recognising that it is possible for a legitimate matter to be stalled and bogged down in process and for the complainant to be worn down. This provides the opportunity for another pathway to be opened. After a period of time, described in the amendment as six months, as the two discrete reporting periods, if it is reasonable, the person making the disclosure, may then step up the investigation, by informing either a member of parliament or a journalist.
That does not happen immediately and there are processes that must be adhered to, but it provides a capacity for escalation. The cases that have been described in this debate give evidence of the need for a further check and balance to prevent processes being bogged down. We also note that there is the need for discrete time frames. If those two time frames have not been met, then there is the opportunity, in the interest of the public good, for that person to go and make the disclosure to a member of parliament or the media, and by so doing, provide a check and balance to the system.
As you have instructed or adjured, I believe was the word you used, minister, was for us to have faith and confidence. That is good. If we were all to have faith and confidence in our institutions we would not need whistleblowers legislation. We have had a couple of cases, referred to in the Chamber, that, sadly, reflect the need for whistleblowers legislation, cases that, I believe, also feed the argument for the need for a check and balance - a check to the system. That is, if the process has been found to be untimely, slow, delayed or inadequate, then the next step can be taken. I trust we have support for this.
Dr BURNS: I believe we are talking about the timeliness of responses and ensuring that matters do not get bogged down within the process. There is a process for reporting, member for Blain, on page 48.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Chair! This is about being able to make a disclosure to a member of parliament or the media.
Dr BURNS: Sorry, I misunderstood but I …
Mr MILLS: Yes, but it is related.
Dr BURNS: I have already spoken about why the government will not be supporting disclosure to the media. I mentioned that New South Wales is the only jurisdiction with this particular provision. My advice is that it has been used very rarely, if at all. Those who want to disclose to the media, go ahead and disclose.
I also outlined a reasonable scenario where someone would have the protection of the whistleblower legislation - the protection of indemnity against prosecution for criminal matters or civil actions because they disclosed using the process. Their complaint or disclosure may not have been worthy of further investigation or there may have been a variety of reasons why adequate proof could not be compiled. That person then has the right to go to the media and make a disclosure, and the media would publish. Whilst that person would have indemnity, an individual in the public service or a company they are associated with, may be named in a newspaper article or the media, their reputations could be blackened and they would not be afforded natural justice or any recourse to the courts.
That is part of the reason why we do not believe disclosure to a journalist will be the governments’ position on this. It was not an issue raised during the consultation period. There is also the definition of a journalist to consider. We know Nick Calacouras of the NT News and Kyrrie Blenkinsop from Channel Nine, but what about some blogger out there who fancies themselves as a journalist and is given licence to print and do anything they like. That is another part of the problem. We are setting up this independent body, the whistleblower commissioner, a statutory officer, with powers of investigation and with an obligation to publish their results. In that context, member for Blain, the government will not be supporting your amendment.
Mr MILLS: Perhaps it is not recognised - I am sure you can see it - that the way the amendment is crafted is to provide that next step; it is not done as an immediate reaction if someone does not get a fair hearing.
You have asked us to strengthen the processes and have some confidence in the institutions. In the processes that have been described, there is the capacity to go through that and have a reasonable period of time transpire before you have the option of escalation. It also needs to be considered that because someone takes it to a journalist does not mean that it will make it into the media. They have filters, and checks and balances as well. Journalists will tell you they have many people come to them and tell all sorts of stories.
However, we are talking about someone, who has gone through the system as described and comes to a point where they need to escalate that; it is the capacity to escalate. If we lived in a perfect world we would not need whistleblowers. However, we live in an imperfect world, and we have seen systems in place in other states where people have gone through the system and been unable to take it any further.
As you said, it is very rare that someone will take it to the media. Why? Because of the difficulties they face through being exposed by that system, and unable to speak up, knowing that there could be other consequences, and they go unprotected when they go to either a member of parliament or to the media. We are not hoping that does occur; we would hope that the system works. However, if it does not, what then? We have seen these cases such as Toni Hoffman. She had to go that next step and she was unprotected in from the time she noted the issue and started to seek investigations and made her reports - she had a hell of a time. It was only when she took that unprotected step, and escalated it, that the matter was attended to and ‘Doctor Death’ was dealt with.
We need that level of escalation otherwise we say, give it a go. I do not think that because, ‘only New South Wales is the only place that has it’, is a strong enough argument. We have to think about this, and recognise that the research project has identified that this is an effective means to provide the best level and the highest quality protection for citizens.
Dr BURNS: My advice, in the case of Ms Hoffman in Queensland, is that the whistleblowing legislation and mechanisms are quite different to those which will operate through the bill the government has brought forward. We have an identified whistleblowing commissioner, whereas the Queensland system does not; it is a system within departments. That is a major difference.
The view of the discloser is a subjective view. They have been through a process that they are not satisfied with but, the difference is, the current arrangement, where people go to the media with concerns, and there are checks and balances; there is another dimension under what is being proposed - that person will be indemnified. That is a level of protection that is not afforded to ordinary citizens who are making a disclosure.
Furthermore, member for Blain, your amendment only applies to public officers; it is selective. You are saying that a public officer can do that, but someone else cannot. Whereas, in the whistleblowers’ legislation, that we have put before parliament, anyone can make a disclosure; any member of the public can make a disclosure. For that reason, we will not be supporting your amendment.
Mr MILLS: I am not going to go all night on this. I believe it is an adequate step, and it is necessary to provide that ultimate check and balance on the system. I am disappointed that the government takes that view, but we maintain that it is the right thing to do.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS (by leave): Madam Chair, I move amendments 5.8 and 5.10 to clause 12.
Madam Chair, this amendment will oblige the Speaker to refer the disclosure to a committee of the Legislative Assembly, if the disclosure has not been referred to the commissioner. We know that they are not going to allow public information disclosures about MLAs to go directly to the commissioner, then there must be an obligation for the Speaker to do something with the disclosure that has been made.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I am advised that the amendment being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is not part of the whistleblowing process in any other jurisdiction. Furthermore, what sort of committee will we have? You have not been clear - is it going to be a privileges committee? That is usually appointed by the resolution of the Assembly. The advice that I have, and the member for Port Darwin might disagree, is that such a committee may not protect the disclosure as effectively as investigation by the commissioner, in terms of confidentiality and anonymity.
Mr MILLS: These matters could be resolved by way of regulation, but nonetheless, it is important for someone who is making a disclosure to know what decision has been made, and to have that follow through. With regard to a person making a disclosure to the Speaker, they should know what determination has been made on their behalf.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, we have been through this in other parts of the amendments brought forward by the opposition. The government has a very strong position that we uphold the position of the Speaker, that we believe in the integrity of the Speaker’s position - putting aside personalities - and we have faith in the institution of the Speaker. I am advised that, traditionally, the Speaker has dealt with such matters, and in a number of other jurisdictions, the Speaker deals with these types of issues.
Mr MILLS: Rather than labour it, we beg to differ. It is not a matter of personalities, and I will make that absolutely clear - but the Speaker - we are crafting something that should provide an ultimate check and balance. The issue is getting to the truth of the matter, not protecting the institutions or instruments. There is that necessity, in order to have an effective mechanism, for the system itself to provide that check and balance, and I believe that this is a means for that to occur. I am disappointed that the government has already taken its position, but we put these on the record and they will stand.
Amendments negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.9.
This is an important matter which relates to the need for follow up. If a disclosure is made to the chief executive, this amendment will require the chief executive to refer the disclosure to the commissioner within 14 days, and to report this referral to the whistleblower within 14 days. It is important to give reassurance to a person who has taken that step forward. You have seen the statistics – in this study, they found 61% of people who had seen levels of mismanagement and perhaps malpractice within a system, but it is only a very small number that take the step to make a formal complaint.
Once they have taken that step, I believe it is an important acknowledgement to report back to them within 14 days - within a discrete period of time - so they have the sense of being heard, that their issue has been responded to, and receive some feedback. If someone comes to see you, as a MLA, and you do not give them feedback, you know how they feel about that. In this case, it is escalated to a very high level and there are not many people, but when they do take that step, you need to provide a discrete period for when they are to be given some proper feedback.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I acknowledge what the member for Blain has said. We are prepared, through regulation, to set some time lines around this particular issue, as well as other issues. It is acknowledged that there needs to be feedback. Obviously, on receipt of a disclosure, at the beginning of an investigation, there should be acknowledgement, and throughout the investigation it is reasonable to expect that people get feedback.
I know that government is not going to be prescriptive about the time frame, after X days, 60 days, 70 days, as I alluded to earlier in this debate, that as with other investigations, the more complex ones, with things happening at different levels; I believe we need to have some flexibility. I give an undertaking that, within the regulations, there will be a reflection of the need to feedback about the receipt of a disclosure and also about progress and the result.
Mr MILLS: This is probably as good as it gets; there is acknowledgement of the need for some structure around the response to the one making the disclosure. I will not push it further, but I do hope that it will not be vague or delayed in its crafting and application. Can you give us an indication, minister, of what you have in mind regarding regulations on feedback to the one making the disclosure?
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Blain. I believe some parts of it are straightforward and some are more complex. I believe we need to look at other jurisdictions. I give the undertaking that I will formally correspond with the member for Blain and let him know what the regulations are.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain. I can see where he is going with this, but this has been intentionally worded in this way because a matter may be investigated under another act. For example, if a matter has been referred to the whistleblower commissioner which is a criminal matter that is referred to police, it may be investigated under different acts. That is why it appears the way it is. That is why, on technical grounds, I cannot accept your amendment.
Mr MILLS: Can you assist me with that? I can see that there could be a problem if someone making a disclosure is told that we are not going to proceed because it has already been investigated, when that person would be expecting the investigation to have proceeded under the terms that have now been provided under this whistleblowers legislation, which provide extra protection.
Dr BURNS: I can only repeat the advice that I have received, member for Blain. The whistleblowing commissioner has the discretion to refer matters on; it could be to the Ombudsman or the police. Police may investigate that matter or it may have already been investigated by police, in the context of a criminal matter. In that case, it has already been investigated in the dimension that the whistleblowing commissioner would have referred it. That is why this appears in the form that it does.
Mr MILLS: I will not proceed any further, thank you.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.11 be agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Madam CHAIR: Is leave granted for the Leader of the Opposition to move amendments together?
A member: Hold on, we have the member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Can I speak on clause 22, please? Under Division 2 – Referral of public interest disclosures for investigation by other entities.
Madam CHAIR: Sorry, member for Nelson, pause a moment please. Yes.
Mr WOOD: Minister, section 22(1) says that: ‘If the commissioner considers it appropriate, the commissioner may refer a public interest disclosure, other than a referred MLA disclosure, to any of the following (each of whom is a referral body)’. Am I correct in saying that if the Speaker does refer an MLA complaint to the commissioner, the commissioner cannot pass that over to the Ombudsman, the Police Commissioner, the Auditor-General or a person or body prescribed by regulation?
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, that is a very good question. I am advised that if the Speaker does refer a matter to the commissioner, which involves a MLA, it cannot be referred to any of those referral bodies. Nonetheless, the Speaker can refer the matter directly to any of those referral bodies.
Mr WOOD: That makes it more complicated minister, does it not? It sounds a bit strange that the Speaker can send the issue off to a referral body but the commissioner cannot. It seems to be at odds and what does it really matter, as long as it ends up with the referral body if it needs to? Is that a practical problem?
Dr BURNS: I am advised, and there was some discussion earlier, that this comes back to a matter of privileges. Under Part 4, clause 36, it outlines privileges and that the act should not limit the privileges in relation to the following. This is a matter of privileges and that is why that mechanism exists the way it does.
Mr WOOD: I will not labour it - I need to get it clear in my head, though. The complainant could go to the Speaker about an MLA, who can send it to the Ombudsman, the Police Commissioner, the Auditor-General or a person or body prescribed by regulation. I am not sure where it says that, maybe you can tell me. However, under this section it says that if it is sent to the commissioner, it cannot go to the Ombudsman, the Police Commissioner, the Auditor-General or a person or body prescribed by regulation. I am a little lost there, minister.
Dr BURNS: I am advised that this falls within the general discretion of the Speaker to take such action.
Mr MILLS (by leave): Madam Chair, I move amendments 5.12 and 5.13 together. I suspect this will be something that the minister will respond to by saying it will be contained in regulations, but I believe that the establishment of time frames for updates should be contained within the bill.
First, within 14 days, there is initial acknowledgement of receipt by the commissioner. That is self-explanatory. Second, within 90 days, the commissioner must advise (a) that the investigation has commenced, (b) that an investigation has commenced but is not complete; or (c) that the investigation has been completed. Third, at intervals of no greater than 90 days, further reports advising the progress of the disclosure are provided. That is also self-explanatory.
It is worth noting that this was one of the key recommendations in the submission to the House of Representatives inquiry into whistleblowing by the Attorney-General. As you have said, there are not that many people who go through the system, however, it makes sense that we need to have a system that provides rigour, to ensure that the one making the disclosure is kept close and in the loop. The amendment also provides the mechanism, which the government has indicated it is not going to support, that if this process goes on indefinitely, there is the opportunity or the trigger for the escalation of the investigation by reporting to an MLA or to a journalist.
I know where government stands on that. Nonetheless, I argue that there is a need for this kind of rigour around the process. Otherwise, we could have it bogged down indefinitely and those making the disclosure may be left hung out to dry, and not sure how things are going; that is the last thing we want.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain for raising this issue as part of his amendments. I have flagged that government is prepared to look at time lines and their inclusion within the regulations. The member for Blain does have a point about keeping people informed, and not letting things blow out unnecessarily. However, the government would also like to keep some flexibility. Beyond the assurance that, I have already given the member for Blain, once the regulations are formed, I will write to him and specifically address the issues he has raised.
Amendments negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.14. In the bill presented by the government, there are some matters that I believe require some rigour; that is, the words that ‘the commissioner may require a responsible authority to notify the commissioner’. That is, the commissioner may require a responsible authority to notify about progress on implementing recommendations.
In clause 32(2), it says ‘the commissioner may report to the minister on the investigation’. Our amendment will require an agency to report what steps it will take to respond to the commissioner’s recommendations, or give reasons for not taking any steps. This is the start of the provisions that will keep this process open and accountable. You have to report and hold yourself accountable. You cannot say, ‘we may or may not’; we are left with that option and we need some rigour around this. We are dealing with matters that you say are rarely undertaken, but if they are, they need to be taken seriously and we need to ensure that there is no wriggle room, or that someone may or may not advise of what steps they may or may not take as a response.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, the government has taken the course of action in clauses 32 and 34 to make it consistent with the reporting notification requirements of the Ombudsman’s legislation, which I believe works quite well There are some people who think the Ombudsman’s inquiries take too long sometimes, but I believe that the quality of the work the Ombudsman does and the detail the Ombudsman needs to furnish as part of the report, is sometimes the reason why things take longer than some people want. There are often complex issues raised and there is a lot of detective work in many inquiries. We framed clauses 32 and 34 so that they are consistent with the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act, and that is why our government will not be supporting the amendments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: So you are saying that, under this bill, if a commissioner makes recommendations, there is no obligation for an agency to report what actions it will take in response to those recommendations?
Dr BURNS: I am advised that if the commissioner requires them to show what steps they have taken, then they must. There would be cases where the commissioner may not require, and I understand that that is also consistent with the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act. It is consistent with existing Ombudsman legislation.
Amendments negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.15.
This relates to the cental issue of the whistleblower and an acknowledgement of the need for protection and the need for recognition of the step that they have taken, and this will oblige the commissioner to report the agency’s response to recommendations to the whistleblower, to ensure that they are kept in the loop and to give them peace of mind. That is one of the recommendations, to ensure that you are minding the interests of the one who has stepped forward. I urge the minister to consider the need for the whistleblower to be made aware of the recommendations.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I am advised that what is proposed in this amendment is actually covered in clause 34(1) that:
(a) the findings of the investigation;
(c) … steps taken to give effect the recommendations.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, the definition around ‘reasonable time’ is loose, and we provide the opportunity for some rigour that would tighten it, so that there can be a reasonable expectation, within a discrete time frame, for that report and recommendation to be made to the whistleblower.
Dr BURNS: Member for Blain, once again, I have given the undertaking that reasonable time frames will be incorporated into the legislation, with the proviso that there needs to be flexibility maintained, for the reasons that I have outlined on a number of previous occasions.
Mr MILLS: I accept that.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.16. This is to provide rigour, and that rather than the commissioner ‘may’ report, we would like to see the commissioner be required to report. In the bill’s current wording, if the commissioner believes that steps taken by the agency are insufficient to address a problem, then the commissioner may make a report to the minister. Our amendments will make it a requirement for the commissioner to report to the minister in that instance. If the commissioner is of the opinion that not enough has been done to rectify the problems that led to a disclosure, then there must be a clear process to raise this issue further and make it the responsibility of the minister of that agency - make them aware of it.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, once again to the member for Blain, I am advised that these particular clauses, in the act as it stands, are consistent with the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act, therefore, government will not be supporting an amendment which make it inconsistent with that act.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.16 be now agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.17. This relates to the fact that any report given to the minister must be given to the police minister for consideration. Whilst two of the considerations are valid and reasonable for the role of the police commissioner, the fact that they would not otherwise be in the public interest also raises some concerns. The Police Commissioner is the chief executive of the department and his position could influence his decision. So there is the possibility of some conflict of interest here.
Dr BURNS: I will take some advice, Madam Chair.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Dr BURNS: It is very sad to see members opposite, particularly the member for Araluen, making a mockery of this committee stage of parliament.
Ms Carney: Give it up.
Dr BURNS: Very boisterous tonight, member for Araluen.
Ms Carney: Give it up. You should have been across it sufficiently, my friend, but you are not.
Dr BURNS: This particular section or clause gives the Police Commissioner certain discretionary power and obviously: ‘(a) may materially prejudice an ongoing investigation by a police officer; or (b) would endanger the safety of any person; or (c) would not otherwise be in the public interest’. I believe this is the one that the Opposition want taken out.
These are discretionary powers on behalf of the Police Commissioner and could be in relation to telephone intercept material that would compromise the investigation; public or personal safety; police methodology; or informant identity. There may be elements, of the way in which police do business, that would not be in the public interest to be disclosed and I believe the commissioner should have the discretion to withhold that material from publication.
Mr MILLS: In the event that it is a matter relating to an inquiry or an investigation into the police, could you not see a potential conflict?
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Blain and Madam Chair. Ultimately, this is a request by the Commissioner of Police to the whistleblowing commissioner. Arguments put forward by the Commissioner of Police would be weighed up by the whistleblowing commissioner, who would then make a decision about whether it was or was not in the public interest.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.17 be agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.18, which has been referred to before; the need to change from a reasonable time which, perhaps, the members opposite think eight years is a reasonable time to move from an announcement to this stage, where we are discussing something; that could be a reasonable time. Let us draw a circle and say 28 days and put some rigour in this.
Dr BURNS: As I have stated previously, member for Blain, the government does accept some of the arguments you have made about having some more definition around time frames, but still reserving the right to be flexible, given the nature of different investigations and circumstances. Through the regulations, we will endeavour to foreshadow reasonable time frames or a process by which those things can be communicated to the discloser and others.
Mr MILLS: Thank you.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.18 be agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.19, which gives the person holding the title of Ombudsman the role of Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner. The opposition believes that the Ombudsman has a proven track record of being at arms-length from the government, has retained the provisions for the Ombudsman to be sufficiently recompensed for the demands of the job. We have also ensured that the bill contains the requirement for the commissioner to swear on oath or affirmation to uphold the provisions of the act. We sincerely believe this is the better option.
Dr BURNS: I believe I have put the government’s position squarely. This was something the government spent much time thinking about, and it weighed up and looked at other jurisdictions. Once again, as we have debated, this is not about personalities, it is not about people who are occupying positions; this is about looking at what the Ombudsman really does. The Ombudsman in the Northern Territory is not only the Ombudsman, but also the health services complaints commissioner. There have been instances where the Ombudsman has had to refer matters from the health services complaints commissioner to the Ombudsman. It has created some difficulties. I am not saying it is illegal or inappropriate, I am just saying that it creates difficulties in a small jurisdiction. That is why the government has determined that the Information Commissioner should be the whistleblower commissioner. I would expect that there will be a fair bit of interplay between the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner in terms of matters being referred; particularly from the whistleblower commissioner to the Ombudsman.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry. Please bear with me. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. You said that the Information Commissioner would have this role as well as being the PID Commissioner.
Dr BURNS: Yes, I said that in the second reading speech.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly because that is not what the bill says. The bill says anybody selected by the Administrator, as far as I can see, is that correct?
Dr BURNS: That is correct, member for Port Darwin, but I did foreshadow it in the second reading speech. It is on the record. People are aware that it is a policy position of the government. It is flagged up and it will take effect through the regulations. It is a matter of saying to people: this is what is going to happen.
Mr ELFERINK: My problem is that this is a separation of power, and this is why I sometimes refer to complaining about Caesar to Caesar - it does not work. The opposition feels strongly - I am of the opinion as well - that you really run the risk, if you keep the legislative instrument in its current structure, that a future Chief Minister may choose to place the PID Commissioner anywhere within the executive arm of government.
Ms Lawrie: Aah!
Mr ELFERINK: Read the legislation. We have, ‘Aah’ from the Treasurer, but that is exactly what can happen under this act. The problem with that approach is that any Chief Minister, including a Chief Minister from this side of the House, should that occur, could also do the same thing. We are arguing that the Ombudsman, who is an officer of this parliament, would be a far better positioned person, than somebody who is selected by the Chief Minister. Otherwise, what you have is the Chief Minister determining who the PID Commissioner should be. That is not a satisfactory situation. I note that the minister has said that the government has turned its mind long and hard to this particular issue. I suggest to the minister that they should turn their mind to it again.
It is quite possible, and it is my understanding, that the FOI Commissioner does not report to this House directly, but reports to a minister. Am I correct in that? Someone help me? It is my understanding that is the case. If that is the case, that still places this commissioner in the same position. If it is not the case, then so be it. However, the fact is that is not what the legislation says. You say: ‘Trust me, it will be in the regulations’. But we have not seen the regulations; they have not been drafted yet, I presume. This ‘trust me, she will be right’, approach could be curtailed by saying, make the PID Commissioner an officer of this parliament, so that they can do their duties fearlessly and thoroughly.
If there is a situation, where let us say, a minister gave away a Toyota, for arguments sake …
Ms Carney: Let us just say.
Mr ELFERINK: … let us just say, to settle a land issue or something of that nature, then I hope that it is not the executive that investigates itself in these situations.
Dr BURNS: The whistleblowing commissioner will be an independent statutory officer. That is very important, and goes beyond the arguments that the member for Port Darwin is putting forward. The whistleblowing commissioner is an independent statutory officer.
Mr ELFERINK: You missed the point entirely; ‘appointed by the Chief Minister’, okay, in legislation ‘by the Administrator’. We do not have to jump through all the hoops. ‘Appointed by the Chief Minister’ - the Chief Minister picks the winner - that is the deal.
Mr MILLS: It is interesting that the original government draft bill in 2006 identified the Ombudsman as the appropriate commissioner …
Mr Elferink: For all the same reasons.
Mr MILLS: For all the same reasons. You will also note, from the amendments we have provided, that there still is an opportunity for an independent clearing house, but the Ombudsman is standing as the commissioner, which provides that level of independence from government, so we can have a system which does achieve the objectives.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain for the issues he has raised. The Chief Minister has foreshadowed amendments to the Ombudsman’s Act. I am not going to pre-empt the debate, but there will be significant reforms of the Ombudsman’s Act and the roles and responsibilities of the Ombudsman and the type of work that the Ombudsman does.
I am not going to say anymore than that, but in that context, government has given some thought to the role of the Ombudsman - a dual role of Ombudsman and Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. The House will see through and make judgments about the amendments to the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act. Therefore, the government deliberated on this and the decision was made that it should be the Information Commissioner, and the Information Commissioner should also be the whistleblowing commissioner, for the reasons that I have outlined before.
Amendment negatived.
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, to move amendment 5.20.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, could we move to amendment 5.21.
Madam CHAIR: Yes. Leader of the Opposition, can I clarify with you, your amendment to 5.20 …
Mr MILLS: Have we put that to the vote? Sorry.
Madam CHAIR: I am asking you to move 5.20.
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you may move the amendment 5.21, seeking the omission of clause 42.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Chair. We will not proceed with our amendments to clauses 42 and 43, however, I will now move our amendment to clause 60.
The bill attempts to exempt all information submitted or created through a PID investigation from freedom of information requests. It is proposed to make documents exempt only if that document identifies or tends to identify the discloser, or a person a disclosure has been made about.
By exempting all whistleblowing documentation, the government has proven that it is not serious about creating an open and accountable government. This amendment provides the opportunity to ensure that the government is open and accountable.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain for bringing this amendment forward. I understand his intention of making the process accountable and transparent, but there are real difficulties with this, member for Blain. I foreshadowed them when I spoke in my wrap up speech. Much of the information gathered by the whistleblowing commissioner in their investigation is confidential, and very importantly, under normal circumstances, its disclosure would be breaking the law, as the member for Port Darwin alluded to in his speech. There are more problems with this. If this information were available, it could lead to the ready identification of the discloser.
I will just read the brief that I have regarding this. The current provision, that it is not in the public interest to disclose information in the possession of a public sector organisation about a public interest disclosure, including information likely to lead to the identification of a person who made a disclosure, or of a person against whom a disclosure is made, is based on Victorian legislation, and similar provisions in Tasmania, New South Wales, and Queensland, unless there is a compelling public interest reason. I am advised that Western Australian exempts only information that reveals identity.
Some further advice that I have is that the proposed amendment is too narrow, as it conflicts with the confidentiality provisions in the bill. It would be nonsense if staff cannot disclose confidential information, that is, information about a public interest disclosure or its investigation, other than the information in the public domain acquired when performing official duties, except in restricted circumstances. Yet, a person could make application under the Information Act and obtain the same information in another way. In other words, I am being advised that to pass such an amendment would open a back door, to people obtaining information within the public sector that they would not normally be able to access. That is one aspect. It is an offence to disclose that information and, furthermore, staff cannot be called to give evidence before a court about such information.
Such an exemption is necessary to provide full and frank cooperation in investigations. Witnesses know the extent to which their statements will be kept confidential. Some witnesses may be obliged to give self-incriminating evidence in the investigation and that evidence should not be available, except as provided in the bill. If you remember, there are some sections in the bill about self-incriminating evidence, given before or to the commissioner, and how that does not translate into evidence that is then forwarded on to a court, as I understand it. That is correct.
Although such information may be protected by other exemptions in the Information Act, it is preferable to be clear that such information is exempt, as is the current exemption for information under the Ombudsman Act. What we are doing with the whistleblower, is similar to what exists with the Ombudsman Act, and to have an amendment, as proposed by the member for Blain, would open up information and people accessing this information, almost through a backdoor method, that should not be available to them. In that context, member for Blain, government must oppose your amendment.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, the government must oppose this for its arguments, which are quite logical. However, can you see an opportunity here for the government, under the guise of the arguments that you have just put forward, to use this clause to hide information that is critical of the government from public view? We have the capacity, and there is discretion within the amendments, for the commissioner to decide whether that information will reveal matters related to the person concerned, but the information itself may not be related to the person but be critical of the government and therefore be inaccessible. That is the issue and that has occurred before.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, the whistleblower commissioner is an independent statutory officer. When you talk about the government, I assume you are talking about cabinet or the political arm of the government, you may even be talking about some elements within departments that may want to keep information hidden. I believe the whistleblower commissioner has the power to come to decisions, and their investigations, for the reasons that I have alluded to, both for the confidentiality of the discloser and, in some cases, giving natural justice about persons who may be the subject of that disclosure, as well as protecting information which is important for the government to protect. It could be commercial-in-confidence or a whole range of things. That is my response, member for Blain, and in that context government cannot support your amendment.
Mr MILLS: Okay. On those grounds, I will leave it as it is. That is an opportunity for openness and transparency, and I believe you have just shut a door and behind that door you can bury information, and the reason it would be buried is that it would be critical or embarrassing to the government and you have found a means to do that.
Dr BURNS: I believe the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions have this rule. There are some jurisdictions that allow some information in certain contexts and with certain provisos put on it. I believe that what you are proposing in this amendment is far and beyond what exists in any other jurisdiction in Australia. For that reason, and the reasons I have outlined before, the government will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr MILLS: Once upon a time the Territory set the benchmark and showed the way by innovation. It is a sad day when we line ourselves up in the middle of the pack with other jurisdictions, when there is an opportunity to do the right thing. I believe just because others have done it, you are doing the same. You found an opportunity to bury stuff and it is not on.
A member: Not true.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.23 to clause 60 be agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 22 October 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is a troubling matter. Perhaps some people have different views of these things. We talk about openness, honesty, and transparency and now we are talking about disclosure of interests, etcetera. Maybe some people put their mind on these matters and think, what can we say that sounds good? I believe we have to weigh on what actually is good and what is real. The Chief Minister often talks about open and accountable government and they bandy these terms about. When they have an opportunity - a real opportunity - to be truly open and accountable and, once again, it appears quite clearly that they have managed to wriggle out of living up to their own rhetoric.
They are doing the same with this bill. Yes, they have modernised it, they have made it look different and I am sure the media releases have already been drafted, the lines have been prepared and rehearsed by all, so that they can say these things in unison and ask each other questions about it during Question Time.
However, the question is: is it as it sounds? Is it, in fact, the real deal? Is it a change? We believe that there needs to be some rigour around this, to provide the government with the opportunity to create some rigour, when it comes to those who want to have a look at these matters in a very discrete and clear way. What we have is, after all has been said and done, something quite vague, that is, a committee. A committee can hide a multitude of sins. We do not know what is going on behind the term ‘a committee’.
The opposition will be moving an amendment that will provide some structure on how the disclosure of these interests can be accessed, and what penalties will be described for someone who makes an inappropriate assessment of the record, so there is some protection. We want to take it to the next step and provide that rigour.
Madam Speaker, it is disappointing, when there is an opportunity to go down a path and actually match rhetoric with reality. Hopefully, by supporting these amendments, we will have that occur in this Chamber.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I believe he has proposed at committee stage amendment and we will deal with that in committee. I assume that he supports the rest of the bill. In anticipation, I thank the opposition for their support of this legislation. This was an issue that was worked on for a long time by the Standing Orders Committee - some people would say too long.
Essentially, this bill updates our disclosure and register of members’ interests legislation - legislation which has not been significantly amended since 1982. The world has moved on since that time. The Standing Orders Committee determined to model the bill based on the Commonwealth House of Representative provisions. I was the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee for this period, and we looked extensively at members’ interest registers across the Australian parliamentary context. We determined, on a bipartisan basis, that the Commonwealth provisions were provisions that were simple, easy to understand, and would give Territorians comfort that members of parliament are transparent, and give the public confidence that the decisions they make and we make are influenced by public good, rather than private gain through a conflict of interest. Obviously, this legislation not only goes to members of parliament, but also to those people who come close to us – our partners and other dependents.
Madam Speaker, in anticipation of the opposition’s support, I thank them for their support. This has been worked through extensively by a committee of this House. I believe that I will have a satisfactory resolution to the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I would like to speak on clause 4.
Chief Minister, in relation to Registration of members’ interests, clause 4(1)(b) states ‘the registrable interest, of which the member is aware, of each related person of the member’. The definition of a related person, besides being a spouse or de facto partner of the member, it is also a child of the member, who is wholly or mainly dependent on the member for support. My question is, and I am not sure if it is in the existing requirements, that children could have a savings account with $50, or small sums of money that the children have saved up, would it not be better to say that any assets or interested over a certain value are registrable? It seems to me that it could become irrelevant, or have any meaning in relation to whether those interests could affect the judgment of a member of parliament.
Mr HENDERSON: This has been modelled on the Commonwealth parliament, and the intent of the legislation is to prevent members of parliament parking significant assets, which may be pointing to a conflict of interest, in the names of children. It is not meant to be intrusive. If you look at the schedule, there is a requirement to identify that there is a savings or investment account, the nature of the account, and the name of the bank or institution, and my advice is, other assets, excluding household and personal effects, valued at over $7500. This is not about my son Liam’s birthday account and grandma sends him $50, and we are encouraging him to save by putting $10 of his pocket money into his account every week. It is to prevent the parking of significant assets in these bank accounts. My understanding, of the way this has been structured, is that there is a requirement to identify that there is a savings account, but not to identify the amount in it, unless it is significant and valued over $7500.
Mr WOOD: That might be right, but it also says registrable interest savings or investment account. You might have five children who all have savings accounts of a few hundred dollars, would I be correct in saying that one has to register that as a registrable interest? If we have to do that, why not say that once something is valued over a certain amount, then it has to be recorded. It seems to me that kids might have savings accounts with small amounts of money in them and it might be better to say that if the total value of those savings accounts is no more than $10 000 you do not have to record it. If it was above that then it should be recorded.
Mr HENDERSON: I understand what the Member for Nelson is getting at. The fundamentals are balancing between the public’s confidence that members are open and accountable regarding assets they have, as per this register, which may, in other circumstances, lead to a conflict of interest. Also, unfortunately, the reality is that when we put our hands up for public office in this parliament, in many ways, our families come with us. In many cases, that is one of the downsides of the job; our families are brought into the public domain, given the law of the land, and the legal status of marriage and de facto partnerships, and the responsibilities of parents for their children’s conduct until the age of 18. This measure is there to ensure that there is not a loophole that would mean members of parliament could, if they wished, park significant assets in their child’s name.
I am not sure whether the Commonwealth members of parliament have to disclose that Billy received $50 from grandma, which he has deposited into his account - that is not the intent of the legislation. The legislation says that if a child has an account it should be notified on the register, and one would expect, given the whole tenure of this legislation, that if there were significant assets held by the child, then they should be disclosed. Are we going to send people off to the privileges committee because you have not disclosed that grandma Jo in Brisbane has sent Liam $50 for his birthday? That is not the intent of the legislation.
I hope that the committees of this parliament, the privileges committee and the Standing Orders Committee, are masters of our destiny - that is not what we are trying to pick up here. However, if I, as the Chief Minister, were to park a significant parcel of INPEX shares into my 8-year-old daughter’s name or the dividends from those shares, then I would have to declare that. That is the intent we are trying to reach.
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, there are two ways of going about this and after some discussion and opposition, I felt it was important to move away from vagueness, to something clearer. By removing two clauses, 5 (3) and (4), which contain such words and phrases as:
And:
If we are talking about instruments such as legislation, I believe that it is important that we try, as far as possible, to tighten them and there is the capacity and opportunity to put something down that is much tighter and clearer. Behind the conditions that have been described in the bill, there are all sorts of possibilities and it is ill-defined.
Let us take it to the next step. By removing the two sub clauses, 3 and 4, we would insert, as you have seen from the amendments - and I do acknowledge that these were circulated late; just a little later than the amendments circulated from government, but I do not believe they are too taxing – the opposition’s amendments, I imagine, are the types of things the Committee of Members’ Interests would develop. They may or may not develop these reasonable conditions. I believe we should take it to the next step, do the work here, and then describe what these reasonable conditions are, so that we can move on, without having to contend with, what is in effect, vagueness.
As you can see from the amendments, there is greater clarity about the conditions, such as, who may inspect, how it is accessed, how it is recorded. The penalties describe 10 penalty units - maybe that is adequate, maybe it is not, maybe one might want to contest that. Nonetheless, let us have something that is a little more structured and solid, rather than the vagueness in the bill presented by the government. The amendments have been circulated. I think this would be a better path to tread, rather than the open-endedness presented to us. I urge honourable members to support the amendment.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I understand where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from with this particular amendment. I believe that we can deal with it in the following way. This is more prescriptive than clause 5, regarding who may inspect the register, the requirements to not give a false name and address when signing the register, and publishing information in a fair and accurate summary. My understanding, Leader of the Opposition, is that this clause is resident in the current legislation we have. The Standing Orders Committee did look at and have modelled this legislation on the Commonwealth government’s legislation. The federal parliament has set up a specific committee of members interests to continue to undertake this task. The Standing Orders Committee determined that another committee of parliament was not warranted and that this clause should be delegated to the Standing Orders Committee of this parliament. Standing Orders should determine the inspection regime and the definition of reasonable interests around defining access to the register.
Leader of the Opposition, I propose that we let the Standing Orders Committee do that work; to consider not only the current legislation we have, but other parliaments’ provisions for access to this register. I have an absolutely open mind. For the most part, the Standing Orders Committee is a bipartisan committee of parliament and there is representation from the opposition and Independents at the moment? Not at the moment. I am sure the Independent can make a submission. We may end up adopting the existing access requirements. Let us leave it to the Standing Orders Committee. I acknowledge the intent of what you have put down.
The legislation gives the flexibility for the Standings Orders Committee to determine access to the register from time to time, without having to amend legislation every time there needs to be a change. It works well for the federal parliament. I am not going to be supporting your amendment because the Standing Orders Committee can determine the access regime. It is more flexible. Access regimes can be changed from time to time at the committee’s discretion without altering the legislation. The Standing Orders Committee can consider your proposed amendments, to determine the access regime for this legislation, before the legislation commences.
Mr MILLS: We will have to proceed on that basis. We are not going to stand all night and argue over this. However, members of the opposition are still concerned about the vagueness that is in this bill, and that those general terms do not give us the structure and the comfort that we should be expecting. However, we have put our position, and we will put it to the vote.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 5, as printed, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 taken together and agreed to.
Schedule:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I will ask a couple of questions in relation to the schedule. Minister, regarding the section on gifts received since the date of the member’s election, and exceeding $750 in value if received from official sources, or $300 in value if received from other sources. Do you think those figures are too low to be a genuine threat to the integrity of a member of parliament? It does not say per year; it says since you were elected.
I do not believe that amount would be the cause of a MLA making a decision based on a bribe in the form of a gift. It could be the case that you have picked up, over the period since the last election, 20 gifts of $30 each from various sources. I presume that this is a total figure. I wonder why it is not substantially higher, to reflect that a substantial gift would have a chance of swaying a MLAs vote one way or another in parliament?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, certainly, these are individual gifts. It is not accumulative or once you get to a value of $750. They are individual gifts and those values were taken from what exists in the Commonwealth parliament. The Standing Orders Committee looked at what was the most prudent upgrade of the legislation. These are the values that are required to be put on the register in the Commonwealth parliament. As it says:
It is the type of thinking that, as ministers, we do a lot of travel and attend a lot of functions. If you are travelling through Asia, it is customary for people to give gifts to each other. $750 was deemed to be an appropriate value that stood the rigours of the Commonwealth parliament and their register. It was determined to be an appropriate valuation to put in ours.
Mr WOOD: It is a little unclear whether that is an accumulation or each individual gift.
Mr HENDERSON: Individual.
Mr WOOD: Yes. On the second last item in the schedule, it says ‘membership of an organisation where conflict of interest with the member’s public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise’. Therefore, I have to put down in the register what I believe could forseeably be a problem, and not only that, it could be seen to arise as well. Of course, there are penalties for not doing the right thing. How does my religion fit into this?
Mr HENDERSON: Religion?
Mr WOOD: Yes. If I am a member of a particular religious society or group, a Catholic or a Protestant - whatever, and we deal with issues which might relate to the funding of an independent school, do I have to declare my religion under this section?
Mr HENDERSON: I understand where the member for Nelson is coming from. This legislation is covering pecuniary and financial interests, not moral questions that may challenge us all, as members of parliament, from time to time.
In addition, in terms of financial pecuniary interests, where people could seek to have influence over a member on a particular policy issue, this concerns us all, in terms of our religious beliefs and organisations and churches that we may belong to. There are mechanisms, at a party level, of determining how we deal with those matters of conscience. Parties have rules about how we deal with policy matters that are also matters of conscience that go to religious positions, or groups’ positions or teachings. Obviously, as an Independent member of parliament, you are free to disclose those and wrestle with your own conscience on legislation and policy positions debated in this House, or motions that go to matters of moral conviction.
The legislation does not intend to cover those challenges. It really seeks to say to all of us that we have responsibilities and that if we are members of organisations, which may open us up to influence or pressure in making decisions in the best interests of the Northern Territory, and seems to be a real conflict of pecuniary or financial interest, or potential financial gain, then those interests should be lodged in the register. This legislation has been in the Commonwealth parliament for a number of years now and it has not tested anybody in the Commonwealth parliament and I do not envisage it would test anyone here.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am not saying that it has not tested anyone in the parliament. I am trying to look at this - it is not so much a personal conflict of interest. For instance, if a church group came and wanted some changes to legislation which would benefit that church, and I was a member of that church, or I wanted to persuade the government to give them a block of land or something, and we debated in parliament whether that should happen - is that a conflict of interest? I might not have a personal financial gain, but I could be seen to be biased in my debate on that matter, and therefore, I have a conflict of interest because of my membership of that church.
Mr HENDERSON: I thank my learned advisors. The problem with the aspirational legislation we are putting in place, to try to protect public confidence in the institutions of parliament, is that it is very hard to identify every specific issue that may come along.
This legislation is here to guide members of parliament and to ensure that members of parliament continually think - whether we are cabinet ministers, hold official positions within our parties, or Independent members - that if we are approached - and we are approached all the time, from all types of people with a barrow to push and seeking to gain some sort of edge in life – we should ask ourselves the question: Am I conflicted in this particular issue? Then we should put that out on the table, through whichever form.
This legislation that we are dealing with today, goes to members of parliament identifying financial or pecuniary interests and to give the public the confidence that members are not being influenced, in positions that they take, for personal gain - for personal pecuniary or financial gain.
We will also be debating the Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Bill. Your issue is probably reflected in positions we take in our code of conduct being members of parliament. Without pre-empting debate, the Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Bill talks about conflict of interest and members must avoid conflicts or apparent conflicts between their private interests and their official functions. Members must ensure they do not come under any financial obligation to individuals or organisations that are likely, or might reasonably be considered likely, to influence a member improperly in the performance of official functions.
That is probably a broader capsule, but I acknowledge your position. If I am part of a church that runs a school and I am on the board of the school as the local member and the school is lobbying the government for a piece of land - that is something that could come to pass. Under the code of conduct, I would expect that the member of parliament would declare that they have an interest and that there is a conflict, even though it does not go to their own personal financial or pecuniary interests; they do have a conflict, in that they are on the board of an organisation that is seeking a public benefit, in terms of land, for that particular church group.
I would expect that, under the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Bill - if it passes later this evening - a member would stand up in this House or a member of parliament would put it on the register. If you are a cabinet minister, discussing whether x and y church should be granted a block of land through the cabinet process, that you would identify the potential conflict, have that recorded in the cabinet minutes, and not be part of that particular decision. It is not picked up specifically in this legislation, which deals with financial and pecuniary interests. The particular struggle you are having is picked up in the Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Bill that we will be debating later.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair. I do not know whether this question is too hard, but these last two clauses, one says:
Mr HENDERSON: This is legislation that has been taken from the House of Representatives. It is aspirational in its intent. The legislation is there to ensure that the public has confidence in the institutions of parliament, that provide for public disclosure by members of parliament. It is the requirement for all of us to consider whether we are compromised in the decisions we make.
I am speaking from the explanatory notes, which have been taken from the explanatory notes in the federal parliament. The explanatory notes for any other interests where a conflict of interest with the member’s public duties could forseeably arise or be seen to arise, the note is: list any other interests which, in the opinion of the member, holds the potential for real or apparent conflict of interest with a member’s public duties to arise.
I am trying to think of a scenario on my feet. If you were a member of the Umpires Association or being on the Board of AFLNT, for example and also a member of government or a minister in government, considering a request from the AFLNT for money for new lights at Marrara or upgrading the change rooms for the umpires, then there would be an expectation and a requirement for you to disclose a conflict of interest. If there was a debate in this House, for example, if the government had allocated, hypothetically, a million dollars to upgrade the change rooms and during the debate there was significant opposition to the appropriation of that grant of money, there would be an expectation for you to stand and declare your interest in this parliament. Whether you had the foresight to imagine that scenario occurring, 28 days after you were elected as the member for Nelson, is another matter. Solomon probably would not have envisaged that would occur, so there would not be a requirement.
But when you stand up in this House and there is an apparent or real conflict of interest, you would be expected to say: ‘I am not going to vote on this because I am a member of AFLNT.’ Another case may arise, if we talk about INPEX, I might have been a member of one of the industry bodies for the oil and gas industry. I might have subscribed to their newsletter that comes out on a monthly basis. As an Independent member or an opposition member, you probably subscribe to all sorts of journals or you are members of organisations to get access to journals - would you necessarily put those down? No. But if you were a cabinet minister and you were also a member of an organisation lobbying the federal government on emission trading and you had to take a position on it, you would have to declare an interest.
Would you be castigated or brought before privileges because you did not put that on your register 28 days after becoming a member of parliament? No. Could you have reasonably foreseen there would have been a conflict? No. But as soon as you are aware that there is either a conflict or a potential for conflict, it is for us, as members of parliament, to identify that as soon as possible. That is what this particular clause is trying to pick up.
Madam CHAIR: Chief Minister, you have an amendment.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I seek leave to insert under the schedule. There was a drafting omission to insert a requirement for members to declare any other substantial source of income and the required information to declare that source of income. Obviously, it is very reasonable to expect. This is a drafting error, for which I apologise – the government did not pick it up.
As members of parliaments, it is appropriate that if we have a second job, for example - whatever that second job may be, that provides us with a substantial source of income - that there is a requirement and should be a requirement, for us to declare that substantial income and the source of that particular income - be it through a second job, a part-time job, a family trust, or significant financial disbursements from trusts. Obviously, shareholding is picked up elsewhere in this legislation, but it does go to the intent that, as a member of parliament, you are expected to discharge your duties to the maximum of your ability and, if you are in receipt of substantial income from other sources, then a requirement to declare those sources is a commonsense amendment to the schedule.
Mr ELFERINK: A very quick question for the Chief Minister. When did you become aware of this drafting error?
Mr HENDERSON: I am advised that we became aware of it at the end of last week. Parliamentary Counsel drafted the amendment. It was circulated to the opposition yesterday, I am advised, and formally tabled this morning. But the end of last week was when it became apparent.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. I put on the record that we received a slap from the Attorney-General for exactly the same time frame as one of the other bills that we debated before the House. Perhaps the Attorney-General would care to give the Chief Minister a similar slap.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to, bill read a third time.
Continued from 22 October 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill. However, it is important to acknowledge that statements of this kind, standards that are described, serve a purpose, perhaps, as a reminder to honourable members. We can have someone called an honourable member who may not be. We may have words that are describing the behaviour of members, but they may do whatever they like and, yet, we have a standard set.
It is important that we put into perspective, when we use words like ‘integrity’, ‘honesty’, ‘fair dealing’ and all those things, that we take the time to be challenged by what is being referred to. Otherwise, it is quite meaningless as, sadly, a lot of the processes we go through in the parliament are just for the exercise. I hope that this is not for the exercise. There are many debates and discussions we could have about ethics and morality and so on, and what this actually means. I have been involved in school communities, where you can put up on the classroom wall the type of behaviours and attitudes you expect, and you think that is an achievement. The real work takes place within each person as they respond to that in an honest way.
It is with those comments that we put this into context, and the ultimate context, of course, is the judgment that is passed by the community. It is not the standard itself - it is community expectations, whether we rise and meet that expectation, and reinforce those notions that people hold dear and they see us espouse. If we do, they will reward us by renewing their trust in us, and if we do not, no matter what is written about us, whether we have these standards described in a bill or not, the community will judge. Ultimately, it comes down to the individual, and how we carry out our own business within our own conscience and the judgment that is passed by the electorate.
I acknowledge the sentiment, but recognise where the virtue of this lies - it lies within the individual, and it is a standard that is set within the community, which will rise and fall according to how you live that out in the face of the community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have a different point of view. I support the idea of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, but I do not support the bill that is before us today. I agree with the Leader of Opposition, that the people we are ultimately responsible to is our electorate, and I hope that most of us are mature enough to realise that we have an important job as parliamentarians. We are expected to carry it out in the manner in which these clauses state, and if we do not, we will find that we will not be standing here next time around. I believe that it is the people who judge our behaviours.
I also believe in a democracy with a free press, regardless of whether we agree with it or not, that we are open to public scrutiny all the time. We are judged by the press, harshly sometimes, and at other times praised for what we do. We also have our own conscience. At times, we need to probably sit back and say, how are we travelling as a parliamentarian? In other words, look at ourselves and see whether we are doing the right thing as a person who takes on a responsible job in public office.
The problem I have with this bill, is that the Schedule, Part 2, clause 5, ‘Enforcement of the Code’, states:
(1) The Assembly may refer an alleged breach of the Code to the Privileges Committee to enquire into and report on the alleged breach.
This basically says that all those things within this code can be enforced, and not only can be enforced, can be punished, and my understanding of the Privileges Committee, you can be punished up to $2000, or you can actually go to gaol for breaches under the Privileges Committee.
I will give a few examples of why I say that is not appropriate. Some things may be easy to see, like a conflict of interest. As the Chief Minister said before, he might have shares in INPEX and did not declare them. There is the issue of acting with integrity. To some extent, that might be a person’s opinion, whether we acted with integrity or not.
Also within the Schedule, Part 2, clause 4 – ‘Commitment’, states:
This debate was probably held sometime before when we had a member of parliament who was also lawyer, but there are cases in other parliaments where farmers are members of parliament. I imagine there are some other occupations where a member of parliament has to do other work outside his normal duties. I noticed that the ex-treasurer for the previous federal government, Mr Peter Costello, has now taken on work in relation to the United Nations while he is still in federal parliament.
I question whether it is the role of the Privileges Committee to decide, (1) if someone is taking on employment that requires a substantial commitment, and (2) to punish someone who has. I believe that is exactly what the electorate would do, if it felt that its member of parliament was not giving their all, then I believe the punishment would be that they would not have that job at the next election.
Also within the Schedule, Part 2, clause 5, ‘Honesty’, states:
That is exactly what this job is all about to me. Someone could make a decision or maybe this scenario might be far-fetched, but if you have a government with the numbers, that believe someone is a bit of a pest in this place and it is looking for a way of silencing that person, could it try to claim that he did something dishonest, and take that person to the Privileges Committee under clause 5 of the bill, ‘Enforcement of the Code’, and punish that person? It may sound far-fetched but you have a section which allows that to happen.
Clauses 9 and 10 of the Schedule, Part 2, ‘Accountability’ and ‘Responsibility’ are very broad. This is what it states under Responsibility:
(c) recognition of the value of social and cultural diversity;
(d) fairness and integrity in official decision-making;
(e) freedom of reporting by media;
(f) the independence of the public service;
(g) freedom of speech;
(h) access to justice.
For instance, ‘recognition of the value of social and cultural diversity’. What if I did not agree with that? What if I thought that cultural diversity was causing the breakdown of democracy in Australia? This is a democracy and I would like to be able to say that, but according to this, I cannot. Whilst it is something I do not agree with, it is now written in the bill, and it is written in a way that I must do it and if I do not do it, in theory, clause 5, Enforcement of the Code could apply.
I will give one more example. Clause 11 of the Schedule, Part 2 – ‘Public interest’ - that is a very nice statement - states:
It is nice, but in theory I can be judged on that, and I can be found guilty, if someone thought I did not act in the public interest. Whilst I have not got a problem with the general idea of being given some guidelines that I should work under as a parliamentarian; I do not believe I should be subject to punishment by the Privileges Committee for doing something - even something minor - against this code and find myself in hot water.
I come back to my original concept: that I am responsible to the people in my electorate. Someone outside my electorate might think of my behaviour as wrong, but might be seen by people in my electorate as quite appropriate. They might have a good laugh. People have seen me do some things from time to time and the locals think that is great. They think: ‘He is joining in. He is having a good time with the locals.’ Someone in central Darwin, who lives a different lifestyle, might think: ‘That bloke is a nutter. He should not be a member of parliament.’ Some of these things are purely subjective.
I cannot support this bill. I support the concept of having a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards as a guideline to the way I should operate as a member of parliament. But I do not believe it is fair that sets of guidelines, codes of conduct, and ethical standards can be enforced, to a point where I could be fined and, in theory, sent to prison. I do not think that is appropriate and I believe people would say: ‘You have been elected. We expect you to be a mature person in the job. We expect you to do the right thing.’ We do not need this overriding system of punishment because, in the end, the members of my electorate will make that decision for me.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will make a few observations in relation to this legislation. Whilst I appreciate what the member for Nelson has to say, I suspect that the common practices of this House would not engender an attitude to randomly send members off to the Privileges Committee, simply because the flights of fancy of this House will take us in this direction. This place gives us enormous privileges. We are here because each of us, in our own seats, through the two party preferred system of voting, achieved a majority of the votes.
When we speak, we speak with the authority of the people who gave us a voice in this House - it is by that system that we find ourselves speaking in this place. It would be a courageous attitude on the part of a parliament, as a matter of course, to seek to silence and prevent its members from speaking their minds, by referring them to the Privileges Committee. If you want an indication of how difficult it is to form a Privileges Committee to investigate a matter, simply refer to the last sittings, where there was very strong evidence against a member, yet privileges was not formed, because it is an unusual step to go down that path.
I also note, reading the House of Representatives Practice, that the former powers of the Privileges Committee to expel members has disappeared. We cannot expel a member from the House. We may be able to suspend them - I presume this is the case in the Northern Territory, the Clerk will correct me afterwards if I am wrong - but we no longer possess the power to expel members, in the same way federal parliament does not have the right to expel members. Consequently, there are powers of suspension available to us, and we can be well guided by the operation of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act in making determinations.
I note that ‘Accountability’, which is captured in the Schedule, Part 2, clause 9, makes the reference to us being accountable to the Assembly through the normal powers and privileges systems, and to the constituents and public generally - absolutely and that is the way it should be. It would be a sad day when we form the habit of second guessing the electorates that put us here.
That leads us to what I find a surprising, but largely academic, situation in this bill referring to the Schedule, Part 2, clause 10, ‘Responsibility’. I say academic because I would not expect the Privileges Committee to be formed, in the way the member for Nelson envisages, for breaches of those subclauses in clause 10. We would remain answerable to the ultimate arbiters of our presence in this place; the voters. Nevertheless, as far as responsibility goes, there are a couple of areas which surprised me, because they do, by inference, have the effect of limiting the democratic processes to which we all hope that this House aspires.
For argument’s sake, if you take clause 10(c), the ‘recognition of the value of social and cultural diversity’, certainly a position that I hold - I have no problems recognising our cultural diversity. However, it would place other members of parliament, if they were elected on particular platforms, into a more difficult position. There are shades of the oft misquoted Voltaireian reference which refers to: ‘I may not agree with what you say, Sir, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it’. If a One Nation-type party or an Aboriginal party was to form in the Northern Territory and they won seats or a seat in this House, by very nature, both of those particular parties would be in breach of the value of social and cultural diversity, if their party platform was that they rejected social and cultural diversity.
If there was a One Nation-type party that won a seat in this place and the member came in and said: ‘I do not want Chinese people in the Northern Territory, and I am not particularly fond of Vietnamese’, then they would have the right to say so, by virtue of the constituency that put them in this place, yet, by inference, would be in breach of this legislative instrument and in breach of this Code of Conduct. They would not, however, be in breach of the voices of the people who put them in this place.
For that reason, I am mindful - whilst I understand the desire by Parliamentary Counsel and the Chief Minister, in this instance, to capture this particular concept, it may be more limiting than people immediately imagined. I am curious to know what the Chief Minister would do in the circumstance that there was an Aboriginal party which was exclusively interested in Aboriginal rights, to the detriment of all other rights. What would he do in the circumstance, where a new member, with that voice, stood up and uttered those words? Would the Chief Minister decide that was a breach of the intent of this Code of Conduct and, by inference, limit our capacity in the Northern Territory to have freedom of speech which is, supposedly, guaranteed in subclause (g) in this legislative instrument?
I notice that the term ‘freedom of speech’ is also used in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act. The term goes back to the original Bill of Rights in England which outlined freedom of speech as one of the rights. That dated back to 1688, or thereabouts, and I presume that is the legislative instrument being spoken about. Whilst noble in intent, there is capacity for these particular clauses to be in conflict with themselves.
I also make the observation, that the word ‘freedom’ as outlined - freedom of reporting by the media, freedom of speech - freedom as a concept implies responsibility, because freedom, in the absence of responsibility, is mere licence, and I do not believe that we would, or should, in this place, simply subscribe to licence for the sake of it. I urge that these concepts of freedom are treated with the due respect that those privileges entail, because if we fail to acknowledge the responsibilities that come with freedom, it will not be long before people will be taking steps to limit that freedom.
Madam Speaker, as I said, these observations are largely academic, by virtue of the fact that clause 9 says we are ultimately, and quite rightly, I might add, answerable to our electorates and to the people of the Northern Territory as a whole. I fully support that concept and, as a consequence, I believe that this bill - aspirational, I believe was the term that the Chief Minister used before - is aspirational, that does not carry, in reality, a great deal of change, as far as the status quo is concerned in terms of the rules that govern us.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate and for identifying some interesting issues which I will attempt to deal with in summing up the second reading. I also thank the opposition for their support. I will address the issues raised by the member for Port Darwin, to the best of my ability, in a moment.
This bill is aspirational, and it is bolstering, through the rules of this parliament, and now through legislation, confidence in the institution of parliament and the work of members of parliament.
This code has actually been in force, by motion of this Assembly, since March 2004, as a result of significant and substantial consideration by the Standing Orders Committee of parliament.. We are not debating the code tonight. What we are doing is enforcing the code, by the establishment and the progress of this legislation. We are not, in any way, dealing with the fundamental responsibilities, for all of us, as a member of parliament, to behave and conduct the business of a member of parliament within this aspirational role. We are saying that the legislation underpins the code and gives the power for the Legislative Assembly to refer an alleged breach to the Privileges Committee, and the committee may deal with it as a contempt of the Assembly.
The reason we have done this is because there was much community debate when we introduced the Code of Conduct, from people in the public who follow what goes on in here, with a level of detail. We all know that most members of the public do not follow much of the debate and detail in this House, but the ones who do, and many of the purists said, ‘Well, that is all well and good, but there is no enforceability provisions, except once every four years or whenever there is an election’. Any number of parliaments, some do have legislation to underpin the codes, others do not.
I agree with all members in the debate here tonight. Ultimately, it is the public who decides. Every time we go to an election, we are called to account for our performance, for our behaviour, for our attitude and commitment to the job that we do, and if we are running under the banner of a political party, for the policies that we put to the people. But all of those things go into a cocktail that determine how people vote and, ultimately, with our great democracy, it is the people who determine.
I understand the arguments from the member for Nelson in saying that he cannot support the legislation for a number of reasons. He identified a many issues that are subject to interpretation, like integrity, commitment, and substantial effort and all of those aspirational words. Yes, they are all subject to interpretation and definitions, but this really is aspirational. The member for Nelson said, if I do not live up to these aspirations I can put be put upon by this House or any member could be and sent off to privileges, like off to the tower of London and off with your head. Member for Nelson, I believe very strongly that if the House and, ultimately, the government of the day, that has the numbers in the House, were to abuse the powers that have been granted to it with the passage of this legislation, given the opposition have said they would support it, then the entire government would be held to account at the next election, in terms of being arrogant and abusing its powers. Everything that we say and do in here is recorded in Hansard.
From next year there will be video and audio streaming and if the government of the day or the parliament, with its combined numbers, was to abuse its power, by attacking a member over a point of interpretation that was quite legitimate, then not only would individual members, but I believe that the whole government, would be held in not only contempt, by the broader community of the Northern Territory, but would also be dealt with at the next election.
I do not believe that the institutions of the Westminster system would see an abuse of this power. If you go to the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges Act and achieve from the Assembly that contempt has been proven, I will read the level of proof which has to be attained under ‘Essential Element of Offences’:
Conduct (including the use of words) does not constitute an offence against the Assembly unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by the Assembly or a committee, of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member.
It is a very high bar that has to be reached in order for the Privileges Committee to determine contempt against the House and a breach of this aspirational legislation. Given the makeup of the Privileges Committee, if the government used its numbers and there was a dissenting report, I believe that the entire government would be at risk of abusing its powers. It would be a very foolish government or Chief Minister, which would abuse the powers, because they are open and public, and Territorians and Australians are very quick to spot governments that abuse their powers and are arrogant, and those attributes of government are normally dealt with very harshly by people during an election.
I understand your arguments regarding your concerns. I believe the realities and the balance in this debate and that it would be unlikely that the abuse of those powers would be used by this parliament. If you balance that potential - and I agree, there is potential - I believe it would be a foolish government that did, with other people in the community who say, it is great that you have a code of conduct but, basically, it is a toothless tiger because it is not enforced and what is the point. That is another side to the debate and we are at least putting some legislation around this to give it some teeth.
Moving to the member for Port Darwin, who went to the Schedule, Part 2, clause 10, ‘Responsibility’, subclause (c) ‘recognition of the value of social and cultural diversity’, and talked about a member who may be elected to this House under a particular party banner, whether it be One Nation, an Indigenous party - whatever single issue party that has a platform of intolerance, to use a word. I believe you just have to go to the word ‘recognition’. It does not say you ‘must embrace’ cultural and social diversity and cannot speak out in respect to that. It goes to the word ‘recognition’. I went to the dictionary to check my understanding of what the word recognition means - there are many implied definitions - and what I read was: ‘to acknowledge by admission and notice to treat as valid, as having existence, or is entitled to consideration.’
This is to acknowledge that it is valid and entitled to consideration, that we have social and cultural diversity in the Northern Territory. It does not say, although I do agree, that in terms of intolerance, it implies - and we all want to live in a tolerant society - that people who are elected to this House should have those attributes. I do not think that it goes to the point that the Member for Port Darwin was making, that it would prohibit a member being elected to this House, and having been elected to this Chamber, on that particular platform, to be able to speak to that platform. I do not believe that this code prevents them from doing that. However, I hope that I do not live to see the day in the Northern Territory that somebody is elected on that particular platform.
However, I do thank the opposition for their support. This is aspirational. I will now go to the Leader of the Opposition, who is absolutely right. It comes down to every one of us, in terms of our individual performance, and the responsibilities and decisions we take. The community does judge, every four years. However, there are elements of society and the community, who observe in detail the goings on in this House, who have called for enforcement of this conduct. That is what the bill seeks to achieve and I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Drysdale:
Madam Speaker,
Member for Drysdale
Is the proposed discussion supported?
The discussion is supported.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support the matter of public importance: The impact of rising crime on Territorians and the lacklustre leadership and action by the Territory government to address rising crime.
The propaganda spin by the Chief Minister and his Labor team, or his batch of geographically embarrassed herd of sheep, or maybe I should say, leadership embarrassed herd of sheep. A couple of weeks ago, they put out their full colour back-to-back, propaganda flier into Alice Springs residential letterboxes. Many of the Alice Springs residents laughed when they saw the government depicting its commitment to CCTV and police and a tough stance on crime. I believe some even cried.
The opposition – our team - has called for a review into on-the-ground police numbers. The NT Police Association has called for the same type of review. For that, two on one, gives the public a good indication that this is the right step forward to deal with our escalating crime. That escalating crime is now at a crisis point; the crime in Alice Springs is out of control. The government, led by the Chief Minister, has no idea how to bring crime under control. Maybe crime is just another result of the Chief Minister’s so-called ‘growing pains’.
I was in Alice Springs the other day and, on that Wednesday night, a female was assaulted in the Todd Mall. The victim was in luck. A traffic patrol going through the mall came to her aid, after she broke free. Moments later, the police had the suspect in custody. A very lucky lady, indeed. It was great work by that officer and the officers and colleagues who continued into the next day investigating the assault. A crime scene had to be set up and the rest is history. Unfortunately, the police in Alice Springs are very well practiced in such investigations. They happen too regularly, particularly in the mall.
The Chief Minister has failed to deliver real accountability of criminals and to restrain crime. The Chief Minister, in his second bite at the Minister of Police, has failed to deal with the drunken, antisocial behaviour, which is the Territory’s fungal disease - left untreated for too many years - like an irritating, itchy foot, it will not go away; it is the root cause of much violent crime in the Northern Territory.
Alice Springs is no different to Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Palmerston or many of our smaller regional centres. The Todd River has flowed three times in the last couple of weeks and, with the rain falling now, will probably flow a fourth time. It is like the journey of the historical green can - a new flotilla each time – like the regrowth of fungus, it is built up each time within days of each river flow. In one issue of the Centralian Advocate, 18 November, there are the following headlines: ‘Two bashed in park’, ‘Gang attack leaves boy, 15 with serious skull fractures’ - cop this, Mr Henderson - the perils of the CBD: ‘Man bashed and robbed’, ‘Grog supplies decrease’, which then goes on to talk about beer decreasing, and spirits and wine rising, with further comments that prohibition is not working. ‘Off target rock hits car’ down along the Todd. This is all in one newspaper.
The NT News Saturday, 22 November: ‘Bashings prompt security cut backs’. Two security officers were bashed within 17 days of each other in Palmerston. One was dragged from his car and bashed unconscious - that far away from being dead. That is pretty serious business; this is a security guard. Another was ‘Police spat on, assaulted’ - three officers, on the one night, in different locations around the Territory. It does not sound good for the Territory at the moment in this newspaper. There are also the ‘Rats over run ‘Pied Piper’ town’. Sorry, it is the little rats over in Palmerston, I thought. They seem to have taken control with no consequences - none whatsoever.
From Monday to Monday – this Monday back to the previous Monday, this past week – there have been 16 newsworthy articles in the NT News on crime alone. That does not include traffic matters – 16 major incidents that have made the newspaper. That is not counting other things. That is not counting the extra four people who were assaulted over the weekend, that did not make the newspaper until yesterday. It is unbelievable that crime has escalated to such a level. I have never seen it in my policing career - I have never seen it go through the roof in such a manner. Where are we, when a security company is pulling back, or doubling its officers to ensure a safe environment? What hope does the public have under this Henderson government, when security guards in Palmerston decide it is not safe for their officers to do patrols? They are trained, so how is it safe for the public?
I can go on and talk about many other incidents. We have victims that are bashed and robbed, pensioners in Palmerston are scared to go out - we saw that in the double page spread today - they do not even want to go outside, but by staying inside leaves the rest of their property to be destroyed by the thugs.
Chief Minister, you have failed to stand up to our street thugs and drunks, leaving them with the run of our communities. Your Police Commissioner is nowhere to be seen, and is most definitely not stamping his authority - the law of the land - on our little thugs and drunks. But he will harass and penalise his own officers with more vigour than the criminals. They will accept all complaints and investigate them ruthlessly and pressure officers to apologise; apologise for locking poor little Johnny up at 1 am or 2 am, instead of berating the parents for allowing little Johnny to be on the streets, breaking into people’s houses. When they are caught, they scream like little piglets, and mostly that is the parents, but nothing happens. A complaint goes in, and then the officer has to explain why he locked up little Johnny. ‘Why was Johnny on the street?’ should be the question. Officers get spat on, hit and verbally abused, and there is silence from the Commissioner.
Stand tall and strong in the face of evil and lead us from this crisis, with strong and fair delivery of laws. Make no apology if little Johnny is caught, or even just taken home at all hours of the night; make no apology. The Chief Minister is responsible, like all his ministers are responsible. I remind the Chief Minister of comments I made in response to his policing statement in the first sittings. I will read the comments that I made, so they are fresh in people’s minds. These are from my notes, so they may not be accurate from the Hansard. ‘We have youth gangs running around our suburbs and we have the TRS tied up with red tape - instead of taking back our streets and suburbs for our families - making the life of our youth gangs uncomfortable. We have fantastically trained general purpose dogs, with handlers, also tied up in red tape; let the dogs off the chain and let us take back our communities’. I said that 2 months ago – very clear, pretty much how I am speaking today - relatively clear, not too fast and not in another dialect.
The total inability and incompetence of the Chief Minister beggars belief. I handed him two real opportunities, which would have broken up the gangs and brought back safety to our communities. They were two options; two tools to be put into the tool box and used. I said, ‘Here, these are two ideas that will work’. He had part of the answer 2 months ago and failed to act. Over 100 hundred days of government and all we have is failure; failure to act, failure to deliver for the Territory people and the victims, and their safety, failure to protect their families, and to deliver a safe community. The Chief Minister had two potential answers: very simple and within the Chief Minister’s ability to give guidance and within the commissioner’s authority to deliver - to protect our community. Both failed to listen and 2 months later, we not only have a crisis in Palmerston, but we also have a crisis in Casuarina, with men smashing up Hungry Jacks, taking on patrons and smashing them to the ground.
It is 2 months later, with the writing on the wall back then, and the Chief Minister failed to act. He has now given direction to do whatever it takes to bring this under control. I call on the minister for Police, the Chief Minister, to call for the TRS to go out on aggressive, disruptive patrols into Palmerston from tomorrow night. Make the call, to ensure public safety, for no other reason. Our reason for being in this public domain, this parliament, is to offer safety to the public - tomorrow. Do not wait for the task force being established to be fully engulfed. Make the call and have it happen by tomorrow. Pay the penalty rate that you may have to pay. For the public safety, it is not much.
Once the new task force, which is being set up at the moment, is on the ground and effective, have the TRS begin work in Casuarina. Work on the gangs there. Break up those gangs, so that they are disrupted. Then you can provide other services to give assistance to and work with the families. Put your orders in and have TVs taken off people. If you do not break up the gang, they will continue to run riot. Once they have done in Casuarina, why not send them to Alice? Let us get control of the streets in Alice Springs - make our public safe.
Ms Carney: Hear, hear! Why not do the same for Alice Springs?
Mr BOHLIN: Exactly. We are here for the entire Northern Territory, and we must deliver a safe community for all of them and we must take every reasonable step to do so - now. You had the answer 2 months ago. I cannot believe that he did not take it up. It was not unreasonable and I guarantee the public would have been grateful for it. The public are crying. The public are bleeding in the streets, because he failed to act. Gross negligence, is all I can say.
Make use of these extremely effective and well-trained officers. They are some of the best trained officers in Australia and they will not let this community down. They have a passion to protect it. They will go and deliver. Do not leave them in mothballs. Do not leave it for the big incident that may one day occur, because I say, today is the big incident, where it is not safe to walk Palmerston streets. It is not safe to walk the mall by yourself in Alice Springs. It is apparently not safe to go to Casuarina.
I have seen some very interesting information that suggests it is far from safe, due to the size of the gangs we have. It is foolish for people to deny that these little gangs exist. We have the intelligence data on them and they are extremely huge. They put our organised crime gangs to shame. If we do not act now and decisively, with highly trained officers, we will only end up with turf wars. If you look at the graffiti on some of the street corners, you are already talking about turf wars. You are talking about the tags of the Wagaman Boys and various other names - that I do not really want to give credit to - going out to Palmerston and the Palmerston ones going into Casuarina.
If you do not take action you will have turf wars. There are going to be 10- to 18-year-old kids wandering around with machetes, dragging people out of their cars – oops, that happened this week, did it not? People dragged out of their cars and bashed - it is already happening. Take the action now. Put the members who need to be on the road, right now. Make the call; have it happen tomorrow. Do not wait to put together your task force, because that is one day too many and anyone that gets injured in the meantime, should consider asking that same question.
You have your other support network - the dog squad. As far as I know, and maybe the Chief Minister can tell me otherwise, they still have not been given the authority, as general purpose trained dog handlers, to go out on the road, hunt down the criminals, and make our streets safer. If not, why not? I ask the Chief Minister to find out. They were trained many months ago and are still sitting there. What is the hold up? Why has it taken so long to put such a valuable asset on the streets, where we can make proper use of them? It is unbelievable.
I cannot believe that we are at this stage, when I gave 2 months pre-warning to take action. It is absolute neglect. It shows the mentality of people, standing around like a herd of sheep, with no real key direction and with no knowledge of what they need to do. Baa baa black sheep. If we forget about it, maybe it will not happen. It has happened and it is shameful that the Territory has come to the time when people are in such fear. It is a fungal growth, which has been festering and growing, and is now out of control. You do not have a clue how to fix it because you will not take the action that needs to be taken; action that is tough but fair and it needs to happen, now.
I am left with this question: is this minister, the minister of Police, capable? He has had two goes at it and he still does not get it right. Which of the two are responsible for the crime crisis we now have: the commissioner or the minister? I am sure the public will make its own choice in due time. I hope the minister for Police steps up to the ball game. We do not have time to wait. Those people who have been in hospital, with teeth knocked out, their gums and their cheeks ripped apart, and their livelihoods destroyed. Their families are asking why. Daddy just went to work and he got beaten near to death. Mummy just wanted a cup of tea; she wanted to buy some milk from the shops. It is not safe.
The minister for Police must step up and take 100% action; not a little, not wait until the end of the week to get people together - take action. Let the TRS out there; they have the ability to deal with it. Make it happen tomorrow night - make this town safe.
I urge for this to happen, because the public are the ones who really matter.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for the opportunity to speak on this matter. It allows me to highlight the many good things that this government has done, where it has shown leadership. We have grown and equipped the police to do their job, which makes our community safer.
Over the last seven years the Labor government has set three clear priorities. One, increasing the resources available to police, especially by increasing police numbers; two, bolstering legislation police have at their disposal to do their job; and three, improving the capital resources of the police with new technology and equipment, new police stations and new communications. There are more cops, stronger powers and better tools.
This is what has informed our decision making since our election in 2001 - that is clear leadership. The Chief Minister’s leadership, as Police minister, was critical in establishing those goals and delivering significant investments to grow our police force and increase its capability to do the job.
The Chief Minister has held the Police portfolio for the majority of our three terms. His leadership has been instrumental in delivering a record budget to police this financial year. We have increased the budget allocation to NT Police, Fire, and Emergency Services to a record $247m. This is an increase of 81% since 2001. More police was the first priority I mentioned. I thank the Chief Minister for providing me with the following figures from the police. As at 31 October 2008 there were 285 more Police Constables and above, ACPOs, and Police Auxiliaries than in 2003. If we add the number of recruits in training, the total uniformed force is 1273. We understand the importance of the uniform to high visibility policing. That is why we are delivering even more police to our suburbs and shopping centres through the Safer Streets and Police Beats initiatives.
From a local member’s perspective, often the most important thing a police officer does is simply to be seen on the beat doing their job. This was the message I heard very clearly from the people I spoke with in Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park. A strong police force, with strong public presence, gives people greater confidence to enjoy themselves in public, to go about their business and to make the Territory their home. A stronger police force, with strong public presence, has been our policy for seven years.
We have a plan for a Police Beats initiative, which will deliver 20 more police and 10 more Police Auxiliaries to be based at five shopping centres. The first Police Beat in Casuarina Square is on track to open in December this year. The opposition opposed the Police Beats initiative, which includes one to be established in Parap. I believe it is important to show leadership as a local member on local issues. That is why I argued for a Police Beat in Parap.
From every conversation I have had with constituents, the CLP are clearly out of step with the community on Police Beats. Our plan for Police Beats recognises the importance of shopping centres. In my electorate, we have three popular shopping villages: Fannie Bay; Stuart Park and Parap. They are places where locals and tourists like to go. We want to make them even better. A Police Beat will be established in Parap. It will also service Fannie Bay and Stuart Park. This initiative will establish a police shopfront at Parap, which will be used as a base for two constables per shift, to patrol the locality, engaging with the shoppers, shop owners, local residents, and showing the police uniform, to increase community confidence and safety. A Police Auxiliary will remain at the shopfront, coordinating their efforts, and ensuring the shopfront remains accessible, while the constables are out on the beat. The Police Beat will operate at the times a police presence is most needed. Our plan, to increase the police presence and police visibility throughout the Territory, will increase the police presence in Fannie Bay, Stuart Park and Parap, and will also reduce response times.
My electorate has had a long-term problem with antisocial behaviour. It is a problem that our government is tackling in a number of ways. The new First Response Patrols have started and also the Night Patrols, run by the Larrakia Nation. Their job is made easier with a dedicated antisocial behaviour reporting line.
We also have a plan for Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park for better public housing and this will take the pressure of antisocial behaviour hot-spots. As a local member, it is important to show leadership on local issues. That is why we have a plan for public housing in my electorate - a plan that will deliver better public housing, a better living environment for all tenants, neighbours and businesses.
The Wirrina Flats, the units on the corner of Gregory Street and Parap Road, next to the Parap Shopping Village, will see the first mixed public-private housing development - a development with an affordable housing component, which will start next year. The opposition opposed this development. In July, the Opposition Leader said the decision to redevelop public housing in Parap was a slap in the face to residents and was not credible policy. We have a plan for better public housing.
Madam Speaker, the second key point was for stronger powers - the Attorney-General will address that. The third key point is better tools for police. We delivered four mobile police stations, one each for Katherine and Alice, and two for Darwin. We delivered new and improved boats, NT Police Force coastal vessels for operations such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement and more; a new larger and faster police plane for Central Australia; and we introduced red light cameras as part of a comprehensive road safety strategy.
We are currently establishing CCTV networks across Darwin, Casuarina and Palmerston - they will be put in Parap later - to support frontline policing. The request for tender closes at the end of December and they should be operational by June next year. I understand that we are also providing just over $1m to the Alice Springs Town Council to expand its CCTV network and $200 000 each year for monitoring.
Members will notice the construction work happening in Dripstone Road. We are building a new police station at Casuarina, to provide state-of-the-art facilities for police and for the public.
I am proud to be a part of a government which is demonstrating effective leadership by delivering police the funding, resources, equipment and laws they need to do their job, and the police are leading the way in pursuing criminals and bringing them to justice. They are reacting quickly to serious incidents and they get their man, or woman. The clean up rates, at well over 80%, are second to none.
Madam Speaker, the NT Police have a hard job to do, often in difficult circumstances. They have my support, and I value the work they are doing to make our community safer.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51. I also remind you that this is the opposition’s MPI and it is probably worthwhile listening to the contributions.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I remember the days when a police officer kicked you up the bum for being a scallywag, or worse, threatened to take you home to your father to sort you out.
Before you get the wrong idea, I can never remember my own father having to lay a hand on me, but the lessons he taught me about love, respect for myself, our family, our neighbours, and our community, will live long in my heart. These same lessons are being taught today to my own children. Am I the best Dad in the world? No, absolutely not, and I would never attest to that, as I have made some monumental mistakes in my life. But did I learn a lesson? Yes, I most certainly did, and I am absolutely positive my own children will make their mistakes as they find their way in life. Each day, I try to instil love, respect, discipline and a sense of community pride in each of my children. By doing that, they will know what is right and wrong, and what is good and what is bad, and if they do make a mistake, at least I have the knowledge that they know in their hearts what is right and wrong, and the future decisions they make will be influenced through that knowledge.
Good parenting is the absolute minimum requirement if we are to provide a solid foundation. Sadly, I believe that many parents today, either do not give a damn, or through the evolution of the welfare mentality, have evolved into a ‘to hell with society’ mentality. Forgetting that it is this society that provides for them and that without the hard work of men and women of the Northern Territory, they would not have the luxuries of welfare and government funded housing, or the luxury of taking no responsibility for themselves or our community.
In recent times, I have become increasingly concerned about our society; its direction and a severe lack of respect for our community by many who choose to call the Territory their home. Our residents are seriously concerned about law and order issues.
Today is White Ribbon day, a day that is intended to highlight a tragic reality of our society and, hopefully, goes some way to eliminate violence against women. Sadly, over the years, many of these young thugs on our streets today have perhaps seen this type of violence firsthand, and one could ponder on this point: what chance do they have if, within their own families, they are exposed to this environment and they consider or learn that this behaviour is acceptable? What chance do they have if their own fathers demonstrate this abuse and that is their only role model in life?
I recall being in a shopping centre when a couple of young kids came running down from a local department store, holding something and then showing it to an older man, bragging that they had just stolen it. To my absolute surprise, the young boy referred to the man as dad, and further, to my absolute disgust, the father applauded the boy and then told him to see if he could get another one. I was horrified and I thought to myself there and then, we have lost. If this is the type of direction some parents are providing their own children, society’s very own foundation has developed a serious flaw.
I also recall visiting a primary school, where there was a group of students who, because of their behaviour, are not allowed in mainstream classes. They are removed because they cannot be controlled in the classroom or the playground and some rarely turn up to school at all. I praise the school for what they are trying to achieve by providing a stimulating environment for these young kids. Our visit coincided with them preparing a lunch for themselves and their coordinators. Taking the time and talking with these boys, and then suggesting they should invite us back again for lunch, must have struck a chord, as they were all excited that we might come back and visit them. What touched me was when one boy grabbed my hand, looked up at me and made me promise that I would come back. I thought long and hard about that moment, and felt a level of connection and figured this boy was screaming out for attention, someone to listen and someone to provide leadership in his young life.
I hate the term, ‘whole-of-government approach’. However, until this government, and the federal government, takes the bull by the horns, so to speak, we cannot win this battle. We must consider that whatever we have done, whatever the policy has been, has got us into the position we are right now; and this position is not acceptable by any standards. If we can at least agree on this point alone and appreciate that past practices, policies, and approaches have failed, we must change direction and this direction must be a whole-of-government approach.
This must include introducing a carrot-and-stick approach to welfare, Territory Housing, education, and most importantly, reform. Until we can appreciate all of this, we cannot move to fully address the issues facing our community today. The good majority of Palmerston residents are decent people who care about our home and our community. However, we are currently being held to ransom by a few young thugs who are terrorising our neighbourhoods. No matter what side of politics we come from, we should be focused on improving the lives of Territorians by providing good governance for everyone.
Sadly, I do not think we are doing all we can to resolve some of these issues. Quite frankly, Territorians have had enough. While I could recount many horrific stories, the following is one example provided in a letter from a concerned mother. I will read it, as it was also sent to the Chief Minister, and provided ample forewarning to what occurred on the weekend:
I recall what I said in my maiden speech, that government needs to deliver policies that make the perpetrators reflect upon their actions, so that the impulses would be curtailed into the future. I sincerely believe that people should be made responsible for their actions and part of that process should be a mechanism to make a person consider those actions. Again, I refer to that horrible term ‘whole-of-government approach’, but I believe the only true way to resolve the type of social issues our communities face, is to involve a wider group and ensure we do not look at these wider community issues in isolation; not treat them as an individual problem, but to take a holistic approach, by reviewing the link between welfare, public housing, education, and employment.
Until we can address this issue, through an amalgamated approach, where we can improve education outcomes for children, lift the standard required within public housing, instil a work ethic within the long-term unemployed, provide real penalties for those who commit crimes and ensure those penalties provide life-changing opportunities, we are never going to sufficiently address the issue of young street criminals and change their attitudes towards the wider community. We are never going to be able to provide them with the role models within their own families they need so much and rightly deserve.
We have a real opportunity and I do not for one moment suggest it will be easy. But the government needs to make some hard decisions. The government needs to provide some tough love for many of these young children, their older siblings and their parents. Only when the government can agree to stop listening to the do-gooders, minority groups and some social workers, whose intentions are perhaps honourable but have failed to protect the wider community, can we go about constructing a better future for everyone. A future where, once again, families can walk our streets without fear of young thugs running amok and treating our streets as if they are part of their own gangland territory; where older Territorians can feel safe leaving their homes to do a little shopping, without the fear of being assaulted or returning to their homes to find that they have been trashed; and where children can play in our parks, without the fear of cutting their feet on broken glass from antisocial behaviour or being assaulted by young thugs.
Every young child needs a leader in their life, needs the positive influence a good parent or good role model can provide. Everyone should treat life as a journey; a journey of discovery, like this slab of rock that I keep, which says: ‘Seize the day, look out every window, live your dreams, dwell in possibilities and life is a journey.’ In my opinion, most of these problems today revolve around respect: respect for oneself, respect for others, and respect for the community we live in. Respect can be earned and respect can be instilled into a young person, but it will take real leadership and an absolute commitment, to change direction and not just a willingness to continue to throw money at programs that have failed to produce real outcomes for many years. It is time to change direction - Territorians deserve it.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for the opportunity to outline the strong leadership this government has shown since 2001 to reduce violent crime and crime in general in the Northern Territory.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest and respect when the member for Drysdale was speaking. I ask members of the opposition to extend the same courtesy to me.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51, regarding no interruptions.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, they talk about respect, manners, courtesy, and civility, but they do not demonstrate it in this place ...
Mr Conlan: Just get on with it, you only have 15 minutes.
Dr BURNS: See what I mean?
We have a number of approaches to tackling this problem. If I could outline from the start, there is a real danger here of labelling every young person as being a miscreant, a violent offender, or a no-gooder. The majority of young people I know are good kids. However, there is no doubt, as the Chief Minister outlined today, that there is an element - and a very bad element - at large, and they are causing many problems. I am very glad, as we heard today, that there have been six arrests in relation to the matters in Palmerston. Those people will face the courts.
This is a government, as I will outline, that has introduced a number of legislative reforms to address this issue: targeting repeat offenders and violent gangs through tough new laws; introducing the ground-breaking family responsibility scheme, to hold parents responsible for their children’s behaviour; setting up youth rehabilitation camps in the Top End and Central Australia, which have already taken a large number of wayward kids and got them back on track; recognising and addressing the alcohol-related harm, through region-by-region plans to restrict supply; opening hours and product restrictions; ID and permit systems; and taking the important step to ensure every Territorian has an obligation to report domestic violence which, tragically, makes up over half of all reported assaults in the Northern Territory.
Members opposite talked about parents and families and the breakdown of law and order, and the problems that are facing us as a society. I believe that we are living in a increasingly violent society, and there are many reasons for that. It is not just a problem faced by the Territory; it is a problem being faced right across Australia and, indeed, the world. There is no doubt that changing drug and alcohol use plays a role in this. The increased use of amphetamines is, no doubt, something that fuels much of the violence that occurs.
As I have said before, rap music - not only the lyrics but the attitudes - appeals to a certain group of adolescents and they are mimicking that behaviour – violent, abusive behaviour. That is undermining the very social fabric of our society. How we address that issue is difficult, but I have no doubt that it is challenge for our community. We make the tough decisions and have shown the leadership necessary to tackle violent crime.
For those members who are new in this Assembly, there have been a number of reforms undertaken in Territory criminal law since 2001. Our message is: violent crime will not be tolerated. As I discussed in Question Time, the government is justifiably proud of the major steps that it has taken, within the first 100 days, to bring forward reforms in sentencing and bail laws. Under legislation just passed, violent criminals guilty of serious assaults, will have to face a period of actual imprisonment. The act ensures that a court must impose a period of actual imprisonment for adult offenders who have committed a serious violent assault causing harm, even if the offender does not have a prior conviction - no second chances - unlike what the opposition was proposing during the election campaign.
Repeat violent offenders will find it more difficult to get bail and there will be a presumption against bail that applies to adults and youths charged with a serious violent offence, who have been found guilty of a serious violent offence in the past five years. If a defendant manages to obtain bail, if they make the slightest breach, it must be revoked. These are clear, simple, and strong laws. Everyone knows where they stand: if you have a prior conviction for a serious violent offence in the last five years and you get charged again, there will be a presumption that you will find yourself in remand. If you do get bail, you will have to be on your best behaviour, otherwise there is no choice in the matter, if you breach your bail conditions you will go inside. Juveniles now have a set number of chances through diversion. If they keep on committing minor offences, they will be charged and go before the court – no revolving door of diversion.
It is evident to me that we have gaols overflowing with prisoners. There are more and more prisoners being sentenced in the Northern Territory - we have about 3 times the imprisonment rate of the rest of Australia, there is no doubt about that. People are also being sent down for longer. Basically, from what the Chief Minister said, it is very important that we are tough on crime. We have taken steps and I believe it is ridiculous for anyone else to pretend otherwise. Those idiots who think it is amusing to hurl rocks at vehicles - that was something that was mentioned this evening - without any thought of the severe injuries that they could cause, now face a specific offence and severe penalties.
We have also brought in drink spiking laws and reversed the presumption of bail for serious sexual offences. Prior to the members’ arrival in this Assembly, government brought forward a comprehensive package to hit gangs at every level, including anti-loitering laws, to keep juveniles from congregating in certain hot spots; a specific violent disorder offence for people causing fear and disruption in their communities; and consorting offences, to stop organised criminal gang members contacting each other. The Bail Act was also amended to empower the courts to prohibit an alleged offender’s contact with known associates or going to certain places.
As I mentioned earlier this year, until the end of 2007, there were 173 apprehensions relating to these new gang offences. Of these, 95%, or 164, proceeded to court and 83% were convicted. The Department of Justice is currently finalising updated figures, and I am confident this level of success will be shown to have continued.
I was very interested in the comments by the member for Drysdale. As a former police officer, I thought that you would have known about and applauded these legislative reforms and results. Instead, I heard someone who is very critical of the Police Commissioner, Mr Paul White.
Mr Bohlin: You have that right.
Dr BURNS: After the 2001 election, when Paul White was appointed, the CLP and Denis Burke tried to savage Paul White, because they had their own candidate, Mr Valentin, a CLP member, who they wanted to head up the police force. It was obvious. They went into it in Question Time; it was brimming with invective, the sort of stuff that Denis Burke came out with on the floor of this parliament.
I do not believe it does the member for Drysdale any credit to be sledging off, almost at a personal level, with the commissioner. I can see now why the commissioner has some difficulties in there because, obviously, there is a renegade group, probably the member for Drysdale was part of it, trying to undermine the Commissioner of Police. I believe that is entirely reprehensible. The Hansard record will show exactly what the member for Drysdale said. He needs to have a good hard look at himself. He also needs to read the Police Administration Act, because he is demonstrating a lack of understanding of the act, the role of the minister, and the role of the commissioner in directing operations. He talked about how the minister should be saying, okay boys, let the dogs off the chain.
Mr Bohlin: The minister for Police made his own comments yesterday in the media.
Dr BURNS: Well, these are decisions for the commissioner.
Mr Bohlin: Did you fail to listen to that?
Dr BURNS: I listened very carefully to what you had to say, member for Drysdale, and I really think you need to read the Police Administration Act, particularly in relation to the respective roles of the commissioner and the minister.
The government also recognises that alcohol is a major driver of violence in our community and it is taking decisive and proactive steps to drive down alcohol consumption. In 2007-08, the total volume of wholesale supplied pure alcohol in the NT was 3.23 million litres, 17.1 litres of pure alcohol per person, 70% higher than the national figure. That is the challenge we face, because we know that alcohol and also amphetamine-like drugs are driving much of the crime in the Northern Territory.
The government has been criticised for what it has done in Alice Springs and Katherine and elsewhere, but it has had a go. People are critical of the dry town legislation and some of the other measures in Alice Springs. Let us not forget that this government passed the dry town legislation, which was implemented at the request of the council in Alice Springs.
The government has tried many things and I would be the first to say that not all of those things are working. I have given an undertaking, through an independent review the government has commissioned, that if it is demonstrated that things are not working - they will go; if things need to be fine-tuned - we will do that; and if there are any new or useful suggestions - we will go along with that. The opposition are always very critical and negative. Why are you not doing something? And as soon as the government takes steps and implements strategies, the opposition are immediately saying it is not working, take it away. The government will look at this in an objective way and will take action on the basis of an independent report.
We also implemented an alcohol court, and I believe, in spite of some of the misleading information that is being put out by some, it has been successful, as it has reached the targets that were originally set. At last count, I believe there are about 153 people who have been through the alcohol court. Admittedly, there have not been many prohibition orders, but there have been many intervention orders through the alcohol court. I have acknowledged that we need to do more. Police have made some suggestions to magistrates about how alcohol courts might function better and, the government will be bringing forward those changes, as well as other changes, that I have foreshadowed, for people who might not be interacting with the criminal justice system, but are a problem to themselves and a problem to the community through alcohol. We are prepared to take further steps in that regard.
We are also introducing legislation in relation to domestic violence and I will not pre-empt that debate, but we are taking very strong measures that really show what government thinks about domestic violence - it has to stop. There has to be a change in attitude in our community so that people do report domestic violence.
I have acknowledged that violent crime has increased in the Northern Territory over the past four years. I have always acknowledged that, year-on-year. I believe there are a number of reasons for that. There has been a natural increase in violent crime. There are also different ways that police have treated violent crime, where police, as I understand it, through the PROMIS system, are obligated to report or record violent crime if there is sufficient evidence, irrespective of the person who is the victim or what they want to do with the particular complaint. There has been a change in reporting also.
We do have challenges; I am the first to acknowledge that. I compliment police for the work that they do. I am alarmed at some of the things that the member for Drysdale has said tonight. I believe they have been quite intemperate and I believe he needs to be more constructive about it. Police are there, in contrast to the letter that was read out by the member for Brennan, there are 200 extra police in our police force, over and above natural attrition. This is the line that the Opposition has been running for a long time. We have increased the numbers in the Northern Territory Police Force, we are going to increase them further and we are going to work with police to get an outcome. We are going to work with the community. We recognise our challenges, but this is a government that has taken bold action on a whole range of fronts and will continue to do so.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am very keen to speak on this matter of public importance. It has been very interesting listening to the minister for Justice. It just goes to show why he is one of the top bananas in this government.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER: He is not to be outdone by anyone, because irrespective of all the evidence out there, he has the ability to cut straight through there, ignore all that and just keep running the spin. He is absolutely marvellous at it and, minister, I take my hat off to you, because you have broken new records in ignoring the realities. Every day, no matter what day of the week it is, for the last few years or so, if you pick up the newspaper or turn on the telly, there is evidence of crime. We know there has been an 87% increase in violent crime - we read the stories constantly. Horror stories from all over the Territory, about people suffering under lawlessness and crime that continually seems to rise.
Yet, minister, you seem to have that uncanny knack of just being able to ignore all that evidence and cut straight through, with the government line - ignoring the realities and all the advice that you receive but just cutting through with that message. I do not know whether it hits home with many people but the fact is, you do it very well. You have at least convinced yourself, I am sure, that crime is not a problem here. I note that every time you stand up to speak about crime, it is in relation to rap music and Eminem and what about MC Hammer and all of the other dreadful influences on young people in relation to rap music. As far as causes of crime, I am not too sure, minister, whether it is rap music.
Mr Elferink: I agree with him. Rap music is a crime.
Mr TOLLNER: I have young kids aged 10 and 11 and they listen to rap music; they are hooked on it actually. It does sort of get your ear, but I do not know whether it is a great driver of crime. Minister, you do a good job of cutting through and getting that message out there, that one of the things we have to do is crack down on rap music. It is probably something for the minister of Education to take on board, because kids these days at schools with their mobile phones and the like, can easily download this sort of music which drives kids wild, as the minister knows, and starts them on a life of crime. You start at rap music, then you are into alcohol, drugs, stealing motorbikes, breaking into houses and the crime cycle begins. Minister, you have done a great job.
I have been right across Darwin and Palmerston doing crime forums in the years when I was federal member. I am sure you even turned up to a couple of those forums around the community. I know you did. You were at the Nightcliff Sports Club for one of them, minister, and you insisted on speaking at that one, defending the government. You did an amazing job cutting through all the concerns they were raising, you just cut through with the hocus pocus on police numbers and the like, completely ignoring their concerns. I went around most of Darwin and Palmerston area, throughout the six years that I was in the position, holding law and order forums with a whole range of different groups, Neighbourhood Watch. Neighbourhood Watch were not saying, goodness, Labor is in office, they have now solved the crime problem.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: No, they were not sitting there saying now Labor has solved the crime problem. No. The people in Palmerston, who I went and saw and talked to on a number of occasions - the Leader of the Opposition was at one of those crime forums. We held one in Malak and the Treasurer turned up to the crime forum. I am sure that there are many members of this Chamber who turned up to crime forums that I convened, at one stage or another. People were coming to them. I believe the one at Malak had somewhere around 150 people. The one you were at, at Nightcliff Sports Club, there was somewhere around 20 to 30 people ...
Dr Burns: Yes, half of them CLP members.
Mr TOLLNER: There you go again; ‘most of them were CLP members’. I have to tell you, minister - not that it will matter to your thrust and your drive - that they were not CLP members. There were a handful of them, no doubt about it, but the vast majority of them were not CLP members. It was the first time I had ever seen the vast majority of them at this particular crime forum.
The reason they turned up was that they were incensed at the lack of action that government was taking. It was more about the spin and the rhetoric, than actually doing anything real on the ground and making things happen. We see it time and time again. It is the rhetoric that matters; it is the glossy brochures that matter. It is not the results at the end of the day that matter to this government; it is the message that gets out that is all important. That is really the driver of this government, and that is why I say, minister, it is quite easy to see why you are the top dog in the ministerial line-up, because it is not about the reality, it is about the message that is getting out there.
We heard a couple of very good presentations tonight in relation to this matter of public importance, which is incredibly important. As far as I am concerned - and I am sure for many members of this Chamber from both sides – this was one of those pivotal issues in the last Territory election campaign, and has been in many others gone by. It was certainly a big issue in the last federal election campaign.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please pause. Opposition members, if you wish to have a private conversation, can you do it elsewhere? I am having a lot of trouble hearing the member for Fong Lim ...
Mr Tollner: I can certainly speak up, Madam Speaker, if you would like.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I prefer that the honourable members take their private conversation elsewhere, thank you. Order! Member for Fong Lim, you may continue.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I have lost my train of thought. The point I was making is that so many elections in the past have revolved around the issue of law and order. The last one was a case in point. I believe that one of the reasons the Labor Party copped such a belting was because of their lack of focus on that main issue which concerned Territorians - the breakdown of law and order; that our parks are plagued by drunks; that people have trouble going shopping in the northern suburbs because of fear of youth gangs; that cars were being stolen and trashed; that there are hoons on the streets; that houses were being broken into; and that we have violent crime exploding with an 87% increase.
These things are happening all the time around us, and people are begging for something to be done about it. What this government does is run the line: we have so many extra police, we put so much money out there. Ultimately, what is happening? Nothing. People are becoming more and more frustrated.
Since I have been in this position, as the member for Fong Lim, I have received numerous complaints from people around my electorate who are concerned at crime and antisocial behaviour, and there does not seem to be an adequate response at all.
I note that the government has promised a police post in Bagot. The impression I had was that it would be immediate. I have found out, from the Chief Minister’s statement, that it will be another 3 years before there is a police presence in Bagot. The people in Bagot deserve some sort of respite from the antisocial behaviour that happens there. They have the right, as citizens of the Northern Territory, to expect some sort of peace in their community, but it seems that community is not as important as other communities.
They have identified a major problem, to the point where they need a police station inside Bagot, but it is going to be another 3 years before this government does anything about it. It will be interesting to see in 3 years time whether anything is done about it. You can bet your bottom dollar that for the next 3 years, we are going to hear abut the police station in Bagot, exactly like we have heard about the two new schools that are being built in Palmerston, one has 600 students and the other one has 800 students. It just goes on and on.
As I always say: do not listen to what they say, look at what they do.
Mr Conlan: The oncology unit.
Mr TOLLNER: Have a look at what they do. My good friend here, the member for Greatorex, reminds me of the oncology unit – that was promised back in 2001, and what happened? It was an election commitment by Labor that they would build an oncology unit. Then they went in to their mini-budget, and they budgeted $14m for an oncology unit. They did not need any help from anyone. They were going to do it. Then somewhere along the line, that fell off the radar. It just did not happen and then slowly the rhetoric changed. They could not do it without any help. After so many years of procrastination, people in the federal government got so sick of hearing about this thing and nothing was being done about it, that finally the federal government stepped in and said, we will assist you. It originally committed $13m, and I believe the whole amount came out at about $35m, after 10 years of ongoing funding. The only thing the Territory government committed to that plan was $1m, plus the land, $1m over 10 years.
This has come from something that the government promised back in 2001, to the point where the federal government has stepped in and provided the lion’s share of the funding. It was supposed to be started ages ago. There was a promise that it would be started in October, I do not think the first sod has been turned …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is quite irrelevant here. This is not what the MPI is about - it is basically irrelevant. He is talking about the oncology unit and the funding, but he was supposed to be talking about crime, addressing the rise in crime.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to keep it much closer to the topic, which is, of course, the opposition’s MPI.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker. For the knowledge of the members, I will read it out – ‘the impact of rising crime on Territorians and the lacklustre leadership and action by the Territory government to address rising crime’. So there is relevance …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: This is a government that is not so interested in results; it is a government that is more interested in saving its own hide electorally and putting out the message there to the public that it is doing something. This minister, the minister for Justice, is an A grade performer, he has done a fantastic job. He had a whole range of evidence and he just managed to cut through with government spin and well done minister, unfortunately you have failed Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I was not going to jump up and talk tonight but I thought it was a very important issue so I will have a chat. Like the member for Johnston, I also commend the police force and the hard work that they do. I recognise that hard work and it is very trying circumstances that the police operate in, in the Northern Territory. I support the comments that the member for Fong Lim has made about the policing efforts and the concerns he has about the new police stalls or shopfronts.
I take note of much of the information raised about the changes that have been made since 2001. The member for Johnston was very keen to point out to the new members, as he likes to call us, the things that they have done since 2001 and how they have changed the world and how all these important things have happened in the different legislation. I did not take notes of all the different legislation points that he changed but the key thing that I kept thinking, as he said how good a job they have actually done, is that since the new legislation has come into power, since this government has been in power since 2001, albeit narrowly in 2008, more people are getting locked up. Three and half times the prison population compared to the rest of Australia, I believe you said. We have seen a 14% increase in the prison population in the last three years. Our jails are full, you have said that, and that is where I commend the police for doing a good job.
I also start to wonder, if all these people are getting locked up, why is crime still so bad? Why is crime still at an 83% increase from when you came in? That is because you have not actually got the competence, grasp or the control of what the real issues are. You are trying to deal with law and order circumstances at the end point and that is when the crime has been committed. You have not got the resources on the ground to be able to catch the people in the first place and that is why we are seeing these incidents at Palmerston, Alice Springs, Darwin and across the Territory.
However, you are not dealing with the true heart of the matter as to why these crimes are being committed in the first place. I am not a soft leftie, but I understand the circumstances that get to point of how these people commit crimes in the first place. You are not dealing with the parents. You spoke earlier today about how you are going to get tough on parents. I remember when those television advertisements came out 10 months ago, about how you are going to start taking people’s televisions if the children were doing something wrong and yet you tell us you have not taken any televisions. That was the big thing. If the kids do something wrong, we are going to take your television.
A member: How many televisions did they take?
Mr GILES: They have not taken one.
You have not even taken action on it. While you continue to put more people in gaols and the gaols are full, the crime is still escalating. You are trying to say it is about alcohol and I understand the issues of alcohol, but instead of dealing with the problem of chronic alcoholism in our community and treating alcoholism as a disease, you wait until the crime is committed and then try to lock more people up. Because you have not got enough police on the street you are not locking people up and the crimes are being committed. You have to treat alcoholism as a disease and that will lower the crime rate. That is sensible to me.
We know that you have to get kids to school, because kids who do not go to school will more than likely be the ones that end up in the prison system. I know that you talk about trying to do things in education and that is important and we support you on education. Kids have to get to school and I will agree with that 100%. But these are some of the upstream factors that will slowly stop people getting into the circumstances of the criminal justice system. You do not have enough police. We know you do not have enough police.
During Question Time today a story was put on the ABC website in Alice Springs, where the Chief Minister said:
Presumably that is in relation to the Deputy Mayor’s recent call about the riot squad going to Alice Springs. The riot squad call is over the top, but when a few people get injured in Palmerston, albeit devastatingly, and you send a special task force there – when these things are happening in Alice Springs every night. They have been for a long time.
I do not talk the town down, but this press release goes on to say:
Must be a little close to the north Darwin seats, I think. It continues:
How good is that? We do not have enough police. We already know that the minister for Housing is not doing his job. So he has to send out security companies to deal with the crime issues across the Territory.
Now the town council has hire security guards to try to protect the streets because the police are not there. This is how serious this matter is. When you have a Territory government in charge of the police and now there are local governments who are engaging their own security companies. It is one department versus the other, in the case of the Territory government, to try to protect the people on the streets of Alice Springs and across the Territory. I am sure that spells something is wrong. And you still have no answer on how to reduce the numbers and the circumstances and the situations of the law and order in the first place.
You keep thinking it is about more police, yet you do not provide them. It is not about more police at all. Yes, we need more but it is not the sole solution. You are dealing with the end problem. It is about cause and effect. Get the people who are chronic alcoholics off the street and treat their alcoholism as a disease and the crime will go down. If you deal with the alcoholics, you will have change. You will not save every alcoholic but at least you will be able to try to save some people and you will get those people off the street, while you are trying to rehabilitate them. This government does not have a focus on that – they are playing spin politics.
They are taking a leaf out of the other jurisdictions across the country – wall-to-wall Labor governments, that spin it and spin it – without having any policy response. For seven years you have failed in the fundamentals and the outcome that we are seeing is more and more law and order, full gaols, not enough police to pick up the people on the street at night and people who are too scared to go out at night.
That is the fact. Until you start to go back to the basics and treat those people, take the kids off the street; take the alcoholics of the street and the crime will go down overnight. That is a simple message. If the kids are not being looked after by their parents and they are out on the street at night - do something about it. Make a tough decision. Crime will go down. If the alcoholics are on the street, fighting, rioting, smashing windows – whatever it might be that they are doing – stabbing people, taking them out of their cars - take them off the street. They do not have to go to the prisons. There are other ways that people can be dealt with.
Some of these kids have social and emotional issues, some have not had good leadership or have not been educated. Some have addictions to drugs or whatever. Some people even listen to 50 Cent and Puff Diddy, all that type of music. But you have to get to the causes behind the problems and until you do, your law and order will be out of control and we will stand here as an opposition and smash you all over the park, but you will still do nothing about it.
You have to take some intent into your policy. I know you do work underneath and you are trying to solve some issues, but it is not working. It is a bit late to play catch up in some of these areas, because you have failed so miserably.
I only wish the Country Liberals were in power, we would be able to do some of these things, because these are simple things.
It almost makes you cry when a constituent asks you to come out and they talk about some issues and you say, this is what it is about and if this happened and that happened, and all round the table there is a complete sense of logic about what needs to happen and they ask, why does it not happen? It is because the Reds are in government - Labor is there, they will not do these things. They will not commit to social change, regional development, stopping the urban drift, building more houses, or increasing police numbers in the Northern Territory. They will put out media releases. But when it comes time for tough decisions and making change, you are in government to govern.
You have to do that, otherwise we are in the same pathetic and appalling situation now, where things are at boiling point. Until you start to make those decisions, we will stand up and talk about law and order and your incompetence at it, until you make improvements. You can juggle the figures around however you like; you can pull statistics out and you can muck around, and you will see that you can make things look smaller or bigger - looking at the mirrors again.
However, the fact remains that people will not walk down the street. When the interstate visitors come to Alice Springs to launch the Outback Highway and they were assaulted in the mall after dinner; when the tourist walks down the street and is smacked around the head; and when people are getting pulled out of cars - this is not New York. This is the Northern Territory where people have this laid back lifestyle.
Madam Speaker, there is not much point in me smashing the government around the head for doing nothing again. They are not capable of coming up with new policy solutions and ideas about how to rectify some of these issues. I will just look forward to next time when I talk about law and order and how the government is doing nothing again.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, law and order has been spoken about every year I have been in parliament. It is …
A member: Your fault.
Mr WOOD: Some of it might be my fault. Maybe I have not tried hard enough to convince government that we should look at a more holistic approach to some of the issues that we raise. Talking about crime on the streets and how we can get criminals off the streets is only one aspect. It is an immediate reaction and gives peace to a community - there is no doubt about that - if you can remove the problem. However, as we know, recidivism in our prisons is very high. As soon as you release people from prison, many of them return, because of the same problems they had previously. I believe that people who commit violent crimes should be punished. But we also need to look at the reasons why people are in gaol, and we need to have early intervention and spend more money on preventative programs that will stop people entering the criminal system.
One is not going to be able to thoroughly debate the complex reasons why we have so many people in gaol in 15 minutes. No doubt, it is a mixture of alcohol; poor socioeconomic lifestyle, that many people in the Northern Territory live with, and that approximately 80% of people in our prisons are Indigenous. Many of those would come from the rural areas and from conditions of abuse of alcohol, overcrowded houses, low education, low incomes, social problems that drive people to do things that, perhaps if they had a better lifestyle, better education, better circumstances, they would not do.
It is not only associated with Aboriginal people. I was coming home late, 1.30 am from the Darwin Airport, and there was a non-Indigenous bloke lying in the middle of the road about 300 m from my place. He was drunk, lying in the middle of the road. When I rang up the police and said this fellow was lying in the road and he was in danger of being run over, the question that the person on the other end asked straightaway was: ‘Is he Indigenous?’ There is an automatic belief that someone lying in the middle of the road is not going to be non-Indigenous.
Many non-Indigenous people have problems associated with alcohol and violence. We know the figures for domestic violence are high and we know that much of that violence is because people are affected by alcohol. It does not mean they are all alcoholics; it means that they have abused alcohol and it has made them very brave people and they have done things that, perhaps on a sober day, they would not have done.
I believe we need to be looking at, and continuing to search for, the reasons why people are ending up in our prison system. Why are young people committing crimes, and they are not all young people? I believe in Palmerston, one of the people arrested was an adult. Why are we not helping people, in the way Will McGregor does, who was one of the finalists at the Australian of the Year Awards? I am not saying he does not get support, but it is people like this that we need to put more effort into. I will read from the Australian of the Year program, which said:
I believe we need to put more emphasis on trying to encourage these sorts of programs, perhaps even earlier into the primary school areas with younger kids. I have mentioned before that there have been experiments in Australia and overseas where teachers are trained to identify, within their classroom, children who appear to be at risk, so that specialists can come in and intervene at that stage, where they see a child who looks like they are going to head in a wrong direction, they are able to intervene and, with certain programs, hopefully, bring that child back into mainstream. The amount of money we have to spend on early intervention is quite small, compared to what we have to spend later on in life trying to rehabilitate people, the cost of putting people in prison, the cost of the violence which occurs because people have been affected by alcohol. If we can intervene earlier with programs like Will McGregor’s, I believe is an approach that we should put more effort and publicity into.
I was always disappointed when the Wildman River program was closed down, and I do laugh a little. The minister said in one of his speeches that the government had invested in three programs. Well, that is not quite right. They may have invested in two programs that were already running. They were private programs, one on the other side of Darwin Harbour and one in Batchelor. The program they have set up is Hamilton Downs, and I applaud the government for that. But you must realise that all the arguments used for opening up Hamilton Downs are very similar to the arguments I used for the retention of Wildman River, and that does not exist any more. We need to put far more effort into those sorts of youth camps.
We also need to find solutions for many of these young people who are on our street. I agree with the member for Braitling, that gaol is not always the answer. That does not mean people should not be punished, but I have argued for prison farms, for instance, as an alternative. I do not believe we should be locking all people up into a concrete block and throwing the key away. We should be looking at alternative forms of imprisonment and with young people, we should be making an effort.
We should be working with the Cattlemen’s Association to take these kids out bush, and separate them from their gang mates, because gangs are all about a couple of leaders who attract many other kids. If we can separate them for some time so they are not an influence on others, and put them to work out on communities, especially cattle stations, where they have to do some work and receive get some education at the same time. It might cost a bit of money, but it probably does not cost anywhere near the amount of money to try to stop these kids going back into the system and to give them a lifestyle where they can see a future.
The cattle industry is a very important industry. Live cattle exports is one of the major industries in the Northern Territory. Kids can get a future on cattle stations. If they can then take the next step and perhaps go back to school and become a more qualified person in agriculture and animal husbandry, there are even better futures for them. But we must give kids the opportunity. The reason I like kids to be sent out bush is a little similar to what Will McGregor is doing - he gives kids a chance to think about themselves.
If you have the right people to go with them, give kids time to clear their heads, to wonder and to analyse, when they have the time, and to ask: where am I going in life? You will not get that in Palmerston, if all you do every day is meet the same old rat bags that lead you up the garden path. You need to be taken away and you need the facilities to try to help you change your world around.
When you come back to places like Palmerston, the northern suburbs and Alice Springs, you need some people who will follow that up, who will encourage you to keep changing to find a more positive manner and way in your life. If you leave people alone when they come back from working on a cattle station, I am sure that they will get into the same problems again. So it needs follow-up.
I believe that we can talk about the political side of crime and the number of police on the streets, but it is also important to recognise that no one wants people getting bashed up, when they are just walking down the streets of Darwin and Palmerston, going shopping or walking home at night from a movie or something. That is not acceptable. We need to make sure that we have the resources to catch those people - there is no doubt about that.
However, if we look at that as an isolated debate, then I believe that we are far too narrow. We need to look at this more broadly. We need to talk to people like Will McGregor, people who have had experience with young people, and ask them: what do we do? It is easy for me to say, this is what we should do. A bloke like Will McGregor has the experience, he knows all the pitfalls, and he knows the successes and failures in the system. We should be working with people like him and have more Will McGregor’s, providing them with the finances and resources to expand these programs into other parts of the Territory.
We can discuss this tonight and I am sure we will be back in a few months time to discuss it again. I believe, because it is such an important area for all Territorians, that even though there is a lot of argy-bargy and it is always a good debate in parliament to talk about crime, in some ways we would be far better off if we could work together as a unit to try to find solutions, because these kids that are in trouble are worth saving.
It is easy to use them as political fodder and to try to gain votes in the community. However, our responsibility as parliamentarians is to find solutions to help these young people. We would use our resources in this parliament far better if we combined as a body to see whether we can achieve some changes, especially for these young people. It would be good if we cleared away some of the rhetoric, and went down to Alice Springs to talk to people like Will McGregor and see whether we could run similar programs throughout the Northern Territory.
There is no easy solution. We live in a society which, in many ways for many kids, does not seem to have any goals and many beliefs have disappeared. We have replaced that with consumerism, quick pleasure, and different types of music. I agree with the Member for Johnston regarding music, the type that I would not really be pleased having my kids listen to. Luckily mine are old enough to know that much of it is not particularly wonderful in developing good role models for young people. Even though there was some laughter about whether it caused crime, I believe it is part of a mix which does not help or encourage young people to move down positive paths.
Whilst I thank the member for Drysdale for his MPI, I believe we need to concentrate on a far broader approach to these issues. They are serious issues. If we believe in the next generation and that they are the ones who are going to be our leaders, we have to put in the time and effort to make sure they will have a chance to be that – our young leaders of the future.
Discussion concluded.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased tonight to congratulate one of the schools in my electorate in their successful application for the Coles Junior Landcare School Garden grant. Berry Springs Primary School led by Tracey Leo - who is their Landcare Coordinator and on their school council - was recently awarded a grant of $1100. This will help the school and the Landcare group plan to replace the exotic plants around the school grounds with native ones. Introducing more native plants will mean their gardens will be more water efficient.
Grade 2 and Grade 3 classes at Berry Springs Primary School have already started work on their first garden which will be aimed at attracting birds and butterflies. The students in these classes are very excited by the project. Tracey said the kids have worked very hard weeding and preparing the garden by hand and even though it was very hot, hard and dirty work, everyone enjoyed every minute of it.
Berry Springs Primary School and the community have always tried to keep their school grounds free of chemicals. Consequently, students and volunteers hand weeded rather than used chemical sprays. I commend them for this. Congratulations to Tracey and everyone involved in making the application successful.
As we head into the end of the school year - and as with all members in here - my calendar is getting full with diary dates for presentations. I attended my first Year 12 presentation the other evening at Taminmin High School. Although this school is not in my electorate, many students from the electorate of Daly attend Taminmin Senior and Middle School. Congratulations to those Year 12 students who have finished school for 2008 and are heading into further education or the workforce during 2009.
My student of the month awards, given out during the last few months, at three of the smaller schools in my electorate went to Courtney Longmirr, Scott Jongmir, Richard Rankin and Caitlyn Rankin from the Woolianna School. At Emu Point they went to Cody Thomas, Darius Miller and Daisy Sams; and from Peppimenarti Stephen Thomas, Henry Kundu and Leeya Wilson.
There are 16 schools in my electorate and I extend my best wishes to all of the staff, students, school councils and everyone involved. I look forward to working with you again next year. To the students graduating from preschool and from the primary school into middle school and into senior school, congratulations to you. I wish everyone a safe school holidays and I hope to see many of you during 2009 school assemblies.
2008 was an extremely busy year and I could not have gotten through it without the many people who worked with me. I started 2008 in a new office and, very shortly after, as a new minister. There were the local government reforms, boundary changes and elections. At times I thought the year could not get any busier. There have been times when I did not say it out aloud, but I have appreciated everyone who has made my job a lot easier. As a team, we have had some very trying times with the recent outages, negotiations for EBAs, and setting up the new shires.
I acknowledge the support of staff in my office: Therla, Katie, Rebecca, and Brett. I also acknowledge the DLOs, Belinda and, recently, Peter Thornton. I also acknowledge Peter Wellings for all his support over the last 12 months and earlier. He has done a fabulous job, and has gone on to be given more challenging roles, all of which I know he will live up to.
I thank the staff of the Department of Local Government, Housing, and the OCPE for all their hard work, and also the staff of Power and Water. They do a great job. Obviously, there have been trying times recently. There is a great expectation from the public to perform at a higher level - one which I am sure we will reach.
Lastly, I acknowledge the great work of my electorate officer, Sharon McAlear. She came on board late last year, setting up the new office. Then, in the new year, I had to be away from my electorate office quite a bit since I had gained the position of minister right at a time when Sharon was learning the ropes. Next came the election which was very tough on her. She has done a great job. She is a competent and independent worker, and it is great to see her getting a handle on the electorate office that I am, unfortunately, rarely at.
I very much like to thank my children. As we know in this House, it is a very tough time on kids. To Cody and Lily, I look forward to spending a lot more time with you over the Christmas break, and making up for a bit of time lost this year.
I acknowledge all the work that the Assembly staff do. To Gaddy, Captain Horton, Ian McNeill, Steve and Annette - who I know is trying to get away tonight. She has a 4 am start in the morning to go on television. Thanks for all your support. To all the Hansard staff who do a great job to get the publication to us as quickly as they can. Also to all the Legislative Assembly staff who do a fine job in looking after members. I hope everyone has a great Christmas and New Year.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): This is only going to be a very brief, Madam Speaker. Tonight, I complain and whinge about this government’s attitude of saying ‘come and get a briefing’ every time something happens and we want some advice about what is going on in government. I just walked around to the back of the Chamber and very politely asked the Treasurer for a briefing or an opportunity to contact Treasury staff in relation to what was tabled here today in terms of the mid-year report. The advice was: ‘No, no, you can stick to protocol. We are going to get briefings to you through the normal process’.
If the government wants to run this line that we always have to get briefings, then, if we apply for briefings, they should happen in a timely fashion. The last briefing I had from Treasury staff was a result of having to wait for about four or five weeks. This government insists we get briefings. If you insist on that, then make the briefings available in a timely fashion.
I do not pretend to be an economist or an accountant. In the role of shadow Treasurer, there are times when you require a few simple questions answered as to how certain documents should be interpreted. These are not particularly difficult issues. They can be dealt with in a minute. It would be simpler if a member of parliament, with the acquiescence of the minister, could ask a non-political question of a public servant to explain a simple thing. With a couple of quick questions, the whole thing would be over in five minutes, and the member of parliament who was asking the questions would be informed in a way the government insists that members of parliament should be informed.
Rather than that, the Treasurer churlishly crosses her arms across her chest and says: ‘No, you are not getting one unless you go through the normal process.’ When will that be available? I will tell you when it will be available – when it is too late to address these issues effectively. I can ask these questions from other sources, I really can. It is not that hard, but it just would have been far easier.
As far as the Treasurer’s attitude is concerned, she is more than happy to stand up here and say: ‘We will make briefings available’. Well, do so. Make them available. Make them available in a timely fashion. The Treasurer may choose to sit there with a smirk on her face and think it is all very funny: ‘Ooh, I am sticking one up the nose of the members opposite.’ The fact is it is our duty as members of parliament to brief ourselves and get ourselves organised in a way that we can do this job effectively. When it comes to technical issues in various areas across government, then occasionally, we on the opposition require information from public servants who have expertise in those areas. It is churlish in the extreme for a Treasurer to refuse to make simple bits of information available because …
Ms Lawrie: I did not refuse to.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, you did. You absolutely refused. You said, no.
Ms Lawrie: Come on. Do not verbal. I did not say, no.
Mr ELFERINK: I asked the Treasurer if I could ring the Under Treasurer. No, cannot ring them up; it has to go through normal process.
Ms Lawrie: Normal process.
Mr ELFERINK: Normal process takes four weeks. It will be Christmas by the time the normal process is made available to me. This is part of the arrogant way you guys do your business.
Ms Lawrie: Same protocols that have always existed. You know that.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh protocols, same protocols that have always existed. I pick up on that interjection. The fact is you are the minister. You do not have to slavishly adhere to protocols. The minister can make a decision all by herself. It would not be an absolute miracle for the minister to do so. All you have to do, minister, is say: ‘Yes, absolutely, ring that particular public servant. Ask a couple questions’. I will even give you a guarantee that they are not highly political issues I am asking about. I just want a couple of interpretive issues in relation to how to read a document. That is it. That is as technical as it gets. But, no, we have to stick to protocol.
Well, guess what? Protocols do not have to be slavishly adhered to and, quite frankly, there is no reason this protocol, wherever it might be written, has to be slavishly adhered to. Normally, briefings are sought. For many years, I have, inside and outside this place, had an arrangement with numerous ministers in the past where I said to those ministers and to the ministerial staff that, on occasion: ‘I will contact the head of the department or something like that to get non-political information out of a public servant. Is that all right?’ And on every occasion when I did that, with one exception, the answer was: ‘Yes, that is fine, as long as it is non-political’. It was a convenient way to deal with these issues.
This smug Treasurer believes in some way there is one-upmanship to be achieved by preventing me asking a straightforward and simple question.
That is my frustration with this government. They claim to make things available, and keep saying: ‘Come and get briefings.’ Yet, when you do, they take four or five weeks to organise. It is not until you are writing to the Senate that they suddenly decide to get excited about an issue and offer you a briefing. It is not until you are whingeing about it in public that you get offered stuff. This government does not live up to the charter it preaches. This comes down to what the member for Fong Lim has to say from time to time: it is not what this government says that you should be watching, but what this government does.
It is absurd beyond words that I get stonewalled in this fashion. I am going to find out what I need to find out by other means. It is not going to cause me any grief to do so but, gee whiz, for an open, honest and accountable government, they really do not like providing any information whatsoever.
And it is not just the Treasurer. There is one other example that has gotten up my nose recently. That was the Police minister who said: ‘No, you cannot go for a ride in a police car in your own electorate’. What is he afraid I am going to see? It is not like I have not been in a police car in my life. However, this Chief Minister said: ‘No, you cannot go for a drive in a police car because I do not want you to. It is not normal protocol’. Oh, garbage! The Chief Minister and the Police minister and any minister can give permission for a non-departmental person, be it the shadow minister or otherwise, to visit the department.
It is with some irritation that I listened to Leon Compton from ABC radio two days after I was refused access to the police force on the grounds that I was not the shadow minister telling us how he went out on a random breath-testing station. Well, guess what? Leon Compton, God bless his little cotton socks, is not the shadow minister for Police. It is this trivial, small-minded approach by this government that is starting to percolate through the way they do business. It frustrates me beyond imagination that simple and straightforward advice is being withheld for no other reason than to score a point.
Well, bully for you, Treasurer and bully for the Chief Minister. I am not going to be slowing my attempts to get information simply because you want to put obstructions in my way. All it does is mildly irritate me until I find ways to get round these issues.
There has been a small hiatus for a few years since I have given a Christmas thank you in this place. I thank the parliamentary staff, the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, the rest of the staff in the place. Hansard – I know you are up there listening – I thank very much for their dedication and patience with us in the Chamber. I know it is frustrating from time to time, but they do their job diligently. The editorial team, in particular, have this enormous capacity to turn some of the drivel we utter into coherent or at least semi-coherent written documents.
I also thank my wife who has put up with my ambitions and desires and has supported me remarkably well over the last few years, particularly this year. My two kids, Eleanor, aka Boofus Headus Robustus, and Guinevere, aka Squirtus Meconium. They are two great little kids. They are the light of my life and make getting out of bed worthwhile every morning.
Madam Speaker, Merry Christmas, also. Thanks to my staff, Alicia Lantry and Tory Mencshelyi. Both of them are a great support to me. They are the sort of people who help us look good. I also place on the record my thanks to the CLP membership, particularly the Darwin branch, who have supported me over this year. It never ceases to amaze me the many hours they put in all for the satisfaction of knowing that their belief system is being supported by me. I am grateful to them for their kindness and the passion they provide, not only to me but to the Country Liberals and, more importantly, the Territory as a whole.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Deputy Speaker, we are in the last sittings of the year and it is customary for members to give their Christmas thanks during this sittings. I will be sticking with that custom and practice.
We have seen the decorations in the shops for a while now, but for me, Christmas is about families and the time spent with families. I hope my constituents in the electorate of Karama get the opportunity during the Christmas season to spend time with their loved ones and enjoy the coming together that Christmas often heralds, whether it is at home or travelling to see loved ones wherever they may be.
I always take time to thank the schools in my electorate: the principals, the teachers, and the staff who work tirelessly throughout the year in the very difficult task of harnessing the enthusiasm and energy of the children in our schools and the all important learning journey they go on throughout the year.
My wholehearted thanks to the principal, staff, and teachers of Karama Primary and Preschool. It is a great school of which I am particularly proud. They have won awards over the years and continue to prove you can provide mainstream education to children in a low socioeconomic area and excel. They continue to look outside the box in the way they deliver education. I am proud of the way they deliver education to our most disadvantaged students, our indigenous pupils, at Karama.
Thanks to the Tata Family Centre, another innovative program. I sincerely thank them for working with the young families in Karama based at our school. I feel very strongly about seeing this program continue.
Malak Primary School has a special unit where they deal with children who are unable to cope with school elsewhere, particularly autistic children. I thank the principal, staff and teachers of Malak for all the endeavours they undertake. It is an excellent school and everyone who sends their child there know their five ways of learning program shows how innovative they are and the quality education they provide.
To the principal, staff, and teachers of Manunda Terrace Primary School - which is in a lower socioeconomic pocket with high density public housing and a very high multicultural mix - I send Christmas tidings. They have a very high Indigenous attendance at that school. They go out of their way to service the children of Knuckeys Lagoon, a town camp in Darwin. I sincerely thank the staff, teachers and principal at Manunda Terrace Primary School.
All these public primary schools could not operate at their level of excellence, teaching and nurturing without the participation of the schools’ councils and the parents on those councils. There are too many to name here, but they are tireless in their commitment to the students, staff, teachers and principals of those schools. I sincerely thank them. It has been my privilege to work with those three public primary schools in my electorate. They have all come a long way in the last year. The students have embarked on a very strong journey of learning and I sincerely thank everyone involved in those schools, from the schools’ councils through to the staff.
Sanderson high school is now an innovative middle school. The principal is setting very strong standards of behaviour, and is also dealing with the wellbeing and nurturing of the student community. It is a completely new dimension for Sanderson in becoming a middle school. I know they have gone out of their way to embrace new wellbeing programs.
The Clontarf program is seeing excellent results in the attendance of male students in the school. My electorate officer, Kerry Wetherall, is on an Indigenous leadership program and running an innovative girls program at Sanderson Middle School which is the first of its kind in the Territory. By all accounts it is going well. I am proud to be able to support that program and its endeavours. I am pleased to see not only are we attending to the needs of our boys, but also the girls there. I sincerely thank all of the staff, teachers and the principal.
I have a lot of interaction with Sanderson Middle School. I recognise the many challenges they meet with excellence. All of the ancillary staff, the ATSI parents and the ATSI contribution that goes into that school, shows there is a great strength of community in Karama and Malak. They punch above their weight in the hours they put in over and above the standards demanded.
We have heard debates in this Chamber today about crime in our community and parents taking responsibility. I have witnessed strong parental leadership across all of my public schools, be it the primary schools or the middle schools in Karama electorate.
I also congratulate the Catholic schools in my electorate: Holy Family School, which has the Rainbow Early Learning Centre attached to it, and O’Loughlin College. They are going from strength to strength each year. 2008, by any stretch, has been a very successful year for those public schools. I believe in choice. I believe in a range of options and the experience I have in my electorate is that both schools are setting very strong standards in the private sector.
I also congratulate Marrara Christian School, a school which has come into my electorate with the boundary changes. They are innovative and showing strength of leadership in Indigenous learning at that school. I look forward to working closer with Marrara Christian School in achieving its aspirations. They are performing a very important role in our community with the intake of students from across the Territory.
I thank my electorate officer, Kerry Wetherall. She is a hard-working, young Indigenous mother who, I believe, is a very strong role model for the community. She has a many relatives and people she has grown up within the community all of whom she is showing that, despite enormous odds - that is, four kids plus being a foster carer with any number of kids at any time - you can achieve well at the local electorate level. She puts her heart and soul into the job as my electorate officer and works tireless hours. She has achieved enormous things. We have many people coming through the doors of the electorate office regarding their needs – significantly, housing needs because of the public housing density within the Karama electorate. There are others with a whole range of social needs. I am very proud they meet someone who is tolerant, intelligent, and capable and who will follow through on their issues and needs.
Kerry could not do the job without the support she receives from my mother, Dawn, who fills in on Wednesdays when Kerry runs the girls program at Sanderson Middle School. I sincerely thank Dawn for the support she has given through the years, but, also, this year as well as in my life.
I also thank Rita Cluley. You never stop learning, and Rita is an astute educator. She has spent decades as such a teacher and in her retirement gets right outside her comfort zone. She is active in the historical society and a whole range of different community places. She is getting into my electorate office as a back-up person. I thank Rita for the effort she makes in ensuring we have someone to call on to take care of the electorate office.
Also to Greg Wills who continues to be an inspiration to me in the way he cares for people in society, particularly the most disadvantaged people. He is an outstanding educator and therapist when it comes to children with disability. I look forward to him continuing his PhD because I know what he is doing across the remote and regional areas of the Territory is truly groundbreaking. If that means our educators know how to educate children with disability appropriately so they can achieve their potential, then this, indeed, is very exciting work. He has my wholehearted support. I thank him for the support he has shown me throughout the years and, very significantly, this year.
I thank Team Karama. I do not have the time to name them individually, but I know I will be sharing some Christmas drinks with them at the Karama Tavern, at the Julies Bistro. They are a great bunch of people from a diverse range of backgrounds and professions who never hesitate in telling me what they are feeling and understanding from our broader community.
In Malak, there were outstanding achievements this year from Bong Ramilo in what he is doing with the youth there. Against the odds he took Browns Mart to the community grassroots level by establishing Darwin Community Arts. He has a space operating at Malak and is running a range of programs for the youth. The centre is embracing the entire community with events such as movie nights and cultural celebration evenings. He works very closely with the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory, which is also based at Malak. I thank them for reaching out again this year to the broader multicultural community by being based at Malak and ensuring that people are coming in and using that facility.
I also thank Danila Dilba. They have their social wellbeing program at Malak and are doing a great job in servicing the needs of Indigenous constituents.
I enjoy my time as a tenant at the Karama Shopping Centre and the interaction I have with the Karama Newsagent; the chemist; the post office staff; Brumby’s staff; the Panda staff; Coles; Lyndall’s, the hairdressers there – Lyndall is great; and the Karama Tavern. They are all very supportive of local community events in Karama and dip into their own pockets to support community events. They very recently supported the Pink Party, which was a fundraiser for Dragons Abreast. We raised about $3100. Local shopping centre owner, Peter La Pira, came to the party with a very significant donation, as did the local traders at Karama.
I thank Michelle Hanton and Dragons Abreast. They enjoyed the Pink Party we hosted. We had people from throughout Australia attend this year because it was our 10th anniversary. It was a great Pink Party but, most importantly, it continued to connect women who have had breast cancer with Dragons Abreast and the good work they do. It never ceases to amaze me that each Pink Party we have, we find a breast cancer survivor who has simply not connected with the network of women who are survivors. It is only through the Pink Party that they become connected. Obviously, it is important in providing them with the support to go on with the process of recovery and, importantly, the enjoyment of life.
As minister, I thank the Darwin Port Corporation, both the board as well as the staff – there is fine leadership from the management team at Darwin Port Corporation. They are doing a splendid job. There are enormous challenges with the port, and they are meeting them extremely well.
I thank the entire team at the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, DIP. They work solidly right across the Territory. They are the engine room, as I am fond of saying, of government, both in planning as well as the Infrastructure division. They work across all the government agencies to deliver projects, particularly infrastructure projects, across the Territory.
I thank the staff and management team at Treasury. It has been my pleasure this year to work with Treasury, a central agency of government. They, like DIP, work across and with entire government agencies. They provide excellent and timely advice to government at all times. I know they work extremely long hours, as well, in intensive periods, for example, leading up to the budget period and the like.
I thank my ministerial staff. They work very long hours and very hard. We have an enormous workload with my ministerial responsibilities, and also as Leader of Government Business. Whether it is sittings or not, they are working very long hours with me to ensure we meet the needs of the Territory and Territorians because we are very focused not just on our urban centres, but our key regional areas as well. We have seen that with the successes we have had lately with release programs and the like. That focus extends right into remote areas, too.
In the short time I have left, I sincerely thank the Legislative Assembly staff. They work very long hours, as we do. In sittings they are in here very early in the morning and remain until very early in the morning – into the next 24 hour clock. Hansard has to put up with all of our speeches, and I sincerely thank them. I thank the Table Office staff, the committee staff, the Clerk and his staff, and all of the Legislative Assembly staff. I have seen the education program running gang busters throughout the year. Everyone in the Assembly has been working hard to support us in the work we do to ensure democracy.
To all my colleagues in government, I wish you all a very healthy, happy and safe season and also to the opposition and the Independent member.
A final reminder, as Transport minister: please, may everyone be safe throughout the Christmas period. I know there are many celebrations occurring across the community. There is absolutely no excuse to drink and drive. If you are going to drink and drive, you are a bloody idiot.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Charles Darwin University Bridging Program students who are doing Certificate III in General Education for Adults, accompanied by Ms Lorraine Sushames. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
TABLED PAPER
Revised Sitting Dates for 2009
Revised Sitting Dates for 2009
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the revised sitting dates for 2009. This includes the three extra sitting dates which are 16 February, 17 August and 19 October. I am also very pleased to advise that the Legislative Assembly will be sitting in Alice Springs from 24 to 26 November 2009.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder about the timeliness of this. Whilst I appreciate there is anticipation that the sitting dates will be added to the calendar, I am surprised that we are tabling them prior to the debate being completed and a report being received from the Standing Orders Committee. This House has not decided on those extra dates.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the sensitivities of the member for Port Darwin, but I also understand the government is clearly on the record as saying there will be three extra sitting days next year. The Standing Orders Committee did meet yesterday and we indicated the timeliness of the sitting days and where they would need to fall.
We did so, appreciating and understanding that for many of the members who do not reside in Darwin the sitting days have a far greater impact on their ability to schedule their electorate work.
Madam Speaker, I also understand you have been fielding a lot of questions from members, quite appropriately, about the timing of the Alice Springs sittings. For the community of Alice Springs, it is important news to hear when parliament, under a Labor initiative, travels to Alice Springs …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Resume your seats. While I appreciate the comments you have made, member for Port Darwin, I had sought advice from the Clerk regarding making this announcement. The sitting dates are quite separate to anything before the House in relation to numbers of days; it is entirely up to the Speaker which days the parliament sits.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! May I see this list of new sitting dates, in that case?
Madam SPEAKER: I have just tabled them.
Mr ELFERINK: Do they include the extra Mondays which were proposed?
Madam SPEAKER: The dates are being tabled now.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, do they include the extra Mondays which were proposed?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I indicated the new dates include Monday 16 February, Monday 17 August and Monday 19 October.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is my point. The House has not ratified this decision. You are actually announcing a series of new sitting dates which have not been ratified by this House. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I think it is inappropriate that you do so until this House makes that determination.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
PETITION
Safe Children’s Crossing Palmerston
Safe Children’s Crossing Palmerston
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 1396 petitioners praying that the Northern Territory government urgently establish a safe children’s crossing between Woodroffe and Rosebery on Chung Wah Terrace for schoolchildren and all other children and families in the area. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
We the undersigned respectfully showeth that primary schoolchildren as young as 5 years cross Chung Wah Terrace every school day. It is an 80 km/h zone
and the crossing is at the bottom of the hill. Palmerston is growing and traffic is increasing. It is just a matter of time before there is a tragic accident.
This issue has been repeatedly raised with this government over the past two years. The Northern Territory government has recognised the problem, but has
made insufficient changes to the area. A crossing with lights is required.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government urgently establishes a safe children’s crossing between Woodroffe and
Rosebery on Chung Wah Terrace for schoolchildren and families in the area.
And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
Petition Nos 2 and 3
Petition Nos 2 and 3
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petition Nos 2 and 3 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Petition No 2
Save Darwin Harbour – 4 points
Date presented: 11 September 2008
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Chief Minister
Date response due: 27 November 2008
Date response received: 24 November 2008
- This petition is directed at the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and seeks to have the
presented matters addressed.
There are currently no proposals to establish a national/conservation park (or a marine park or marine protected area) in Darwin Harbour.
This government, through the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, is preparing a draft NT Marine Protected Areas Strategy which will provide
the technical, planning and consultative framework for establishing a representative network of marine protected areas in the Northern Territory. The draft strategy is being
developed in consultation with a wide range of government, non-government, industry and community stakeholders.
Industrial development is an important part of the NT economy and must be seen in symbiosis with the other equally important parts of the economy such as tourism and
knowledge economy. The future development of the Greater Darwin area including industrial development, is being investigated by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
Proposals set out in the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan of 1990 will be evaluated. Development that is not only economical but also environmentally sustainable,
including climate change issues, will form an integral part of the study.
The government is also undertaking environmental investigations in preparation for industrial development at Middle Arm. In order to fully understand the management of
potential impacts on the peninsula as it is progressively developed, a gap analysis is currently under way to determine what existing environmental information for the peninsula exists,
and what further environmental studies need to be conducted.
Any proposed development is required to be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport for consideration under the Environmental Assessment
Act. Where environmental impact assessment is required for proposals, a rigorous scientific approach is implemented, which can include the assessment of cumulative effects. There are
opportunities for public input into the process of developing the guidelines for investigative works and to review and comment on environmental impact statements or public environmental reports.
- Risk assessment on major hazard facilities, such as major gas pipelines and petrochemical plants, is an integral part of the current NT dangerous goods licensing regime. Under the
Dangerous Goods Act and the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2007, any industry which uses or manufactures dangerous goods over a specified volume, requires risk assessments
to be undertaken. The National Standard for the Control of Major Hazard Facilities specifies the volumes. This standard also requires companies to take into consideration off-site
issues, including surrounding land use, pipelines, environmental sensitivity and potential for external threats.
NT WorkSafe is committed to ensuring any authorised development progresses in a way which provides maximum benefit to the community while maintaining high standards of
safety and ensuring environmental matters are taken into consideration.
4. Other options – Gunn Point or Koolpinyah areas
- The strategic planning envisaged for the long-term growth of the Darwin region was that urbanisation eventually surrounding Darwin Harbour was preferred to other options such
as a linear city form that stretched down the Stuart Highway and swinging north-east toward Glyde Point or south-west along the Finniss area.
Under any growth scenario, land is required for industrial development. This requires port access and facilities that are in reasonable proximity to residential areas for the
workforce and other industrial land to support industry.
In the NT Planning Scheme, the intertidal zone of mangrove fringe areas are designated as a Conservation Zone in order to try to strike a balance between the locational
needs of major industry and environmental issues.
Petition No 3
Save Darwin Harbour – 3 points
Date presented: 11 September 2008
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Chief Minister
Date response due: 27 November 2008
Date response received: 24 November 2008
- This petition is directed at the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and seeks to have the
presented matters addressed.
There are currently no proposals to establish a national/conservation park (or a marine park or marine protected area) in Darwin Harbour.
This government, through the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, is preparing a draft NT Marine Protected Areas Strategy which will provide the technical,
planning and consultative framework for establishing a representative network of marine protected areas in the Northern Territory. The draft strategy is being developed in consultation
with a wide range of government, non-government, industry and community stakeholders.
Industrial development is an important part of the NT economy and must be seen in symbiosis with the other equally important parts of the economy such as tourism and knowledge
economy. The future development of the Greater Darwin area including industrial development, is being investigated by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Proposals set
out in the Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan of 1990 will be evaluated. Development that is not only economical but also environmentally sustainable, including climate change
issues, will form an integral part of the study.
The government is also undertaking environmental investigations in preparation for industrial development at Middle Arm. In order to fully understand the management of potential
impacts on the peninsula as it is progressively developed, a gap analysis is currently under way to determine what existing environmental information for the peninsula exists,
and what further environmental studies need to be conducted.
Any proposed development is required to be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport for consideration under the Environmental
Assessment Act. Where environmental impact assessment is required for proposals, a rigorous scientific approach is implemented, which can include the assessment of cumulative
effects. There are opportunities for public input into the process of developing the guidelines for investigative works and to review and comment on environmental impact
statements or public environmental reports.
3. Risk Assessment of the gas and petrochemical developments
- Risk assessment on major hazard facilities, such as major gas pipelines and petrochemical plants, is an integral part of the current NT dangerous goods licensing regime. Under the
Dangerous Goods Act and the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2007, any industry which uses or manufactures dangerous goods over a specified volume, requires risk assessments
to be undertaken. The National Standard for the Control of Major Hazard Facilities specifies the volumes. This standard also requires companies to take into consideration off-site
issues, including surrounding land use, pipelines, environmental sensitivity and potential for external threats.
NT WorkSafe is committed to ensuring any authorised development progresses in a way which provides maximum benefit to the community while maintaining high standards of
safety and ensuring environmental matters are taken into consideration.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
White Ribbon Day
White Ribbon Day
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to inform the House that today is White Ribbon Day; a day of recognising the need to eliminate violence within families. White Ribbon Day is the largest campaign in the world that involves men in the struggle to end men’s violence against women.
Domestic and family violence is a major health and social issue in Australia. We all know how significant this problem is in the Northern Territory. Members of this parliament have expressed stories from their regions on this issue. Domestic and family violence continues to impact on the lives of far too many Territorians, particularly Indigenous Territorians. Over the years, I have seen firsthand the damage, both physical and emotional, from this particular form of violence. As a community, the Territory must continue to tackle the issues related to domestic violence. As a society, we all have a responsibility to work towards breaking the cycle of violence and protect women and children across the Northern Territory.
Last week, a study was released which highlighted that one in seven Australian boys believe that violence against women was okay. This is totally unacceptable and we need to make real change in community attitudes regarding domestic and family violence.
Last week, I was pleased to meet with Charlie King, who has been working with men in remote communities to turn around the attitudes of men in relation to domestic and family violence. Charlie King is right when he says that as the perpetrators of so much of this violence, men are central to the solution - we cannot do it without them. Charlie has visited some 30 communities over the last couple of years, spreading the message that strong men can protect their families. As Minister for Children and Families, I will do everything I can to work with people like Charlie King to try to turn things around in this all-important area.
Tomorrow, we will see the introduction of a bill to this House to implement mandatory reporting for domestic and family violence. I believe this bill will represent a significant step forward to changing Territory attitudes towards domestic and family violence. White Ribbon Day offers a unique opportunity to promote the no to violence message on many fronts. The focus of this year’s White Ribbon Day is about changing community attitudes - a fitting message as we move to implement universal mandatory reporting of domestic violence across the Northern Territory.
It is also important to recognise the role of White Ribbon Day Ambassadors who promote the importance of men speaking out to stop violence. I am pleased to announce that this year’s White Ribbon Day Ambassadors are: Chief Minister, Paul Henderson; Police Commissioner, Paul White; Darwin Lord Mayor, Graeme Sawyer; Alice Springs Mayor, Damien Ryan; Channel 9 newsreader Jonathan Uptin; Chief Executive Officer, Department of Health and Families, Dr David Ashbridge; Executive Director, Department of Health and Families, Professor Shane Houston; Commander, Southern Division, NT Police, Kym Davies; President, NT Police Association, Vince Kelly; Charlie King, ABC; NT Legal Aid Alice Springs, Russell Goldflam; CDEP Contract Manager, DEWR, Ken Lechleitner; and Aboriginal Housing Manager, Eric Sultan.
This is an impressive list of men who are standing up as official White Ribbon Day Ambassadors, but everyone can be an ambassador for White Ribbon Day.
Wearing a white ribbon is a symbol and a personal pledge that the wearer does not condone violence and is committed to supporting community action and attitudinal change to stop violence within the home. We can reduce violence in the home with real and sustained attitudinal change. I urge everyone to spread the message: Not violent: Not silent, and that violence within the home is not okay.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the opposition joins with government and the minister’s sentiments to put an end to violence. I anticipated the minister making a report this morning, and last night I looked at the report her predecessor made on 30 November 2005. There is a similarity in the statements, but I notice that, in my reply then, I referred to this government’s position when it came to customary law. I have made the point, both in and out of this House over a number of years, that customary law in the criminal jurisdiction can be used as a shield to protect violent men. My position has not changed; sadly the government’s has not either.
In relation to the minister’s report in November 2005, the figures reveal that things have not changed for the better, in fact, they have changed for the worse. That is an indictment on this government; it is also an indictment on us as a community. I note that White Ribbon Day started in 1991 when a bunch of men in Canada joined together to give their support for women who were the victims of violence. In essence it is a day for men. I urge all men in the Northern Territory to not only reflect on violence against women today, but to do it for the other 364 days of the year.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the sentiments given by the minister in relation to White Ribbon Day. I believe it is very important to protect the most vulnerable, especially those people living at home. The more emphasis and publicity that we can put on this, at least we can start to tell people that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.
We should also be making a greater emphasis that all violence is unacceptable. Today, we are focusing on one particular area - violence against women and children. However, as shown in the paper over the last few days, violence, in general in the Northern Territory and the world is still horrific, for example, in the so-called Democratic Republic of Congo. I believe that we should speak up about violence as a whole - that it is unacceptable in our society.
Violence is certainly unacceptable against women and children, but, we also see it on the football field. I recently reported two young men in an Under-14 football match, who both cowardly hit a person who did not even see it coming. It is something that is okay in the minds of young people today. It is not okay on the football field, and it should not be okay in the home or in Palmerston or Alice Springs or many parts of the world that suffer from violence.
I agree with the sentiments that the minister is making today, White Ribbon Day, however, we should also look at the big picture and say that we should not condone violence, wherever it occurs and we should do our best at this time of year, at Christmas, to promote peace.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their comments and invite the member for Araluen to be involved and work with me on the campaign to get the message out about domestic violence across the Northern Territory, especially in our regions.
I am acutely aware of the issues, not only as the member for Arnhem with my own constituents in Arnhem Land, but also as a Yanyuwa woman from the Gulf country, growing up in that environment. As a member of this House and parliament, along with all my parliamentary colleagues, I want to know that we are growing our children for a future without violence, a future where we change the attitudes of society, so that if we see someone getting hurt, it is not acceptable and certainly not in the home; the place where children grow. I thank the members opposite for their support.
Central Australia – Antisocial Behaviour of Youth and Children
Ms ANDERSON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, since becoming minister for Central Australia I have become increasingly concerned at the level of antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs involving youth and children. I know that my concerns are shared by the great majority of residents in Alice Springs. I have listened to all key stakeholders, including the shadow minister for Central Australia, speak about the complex matters associated with this issue. I have spent a number of evenings, until the early hours of the morning, in the hot spots of Alice Springs and personally observed the antisocial behaviour firsthand. I have raised the issue with the Chief Minister and other relevant cabinet colleagues and there is a real willingness in the Henderson government to address this problem in line with community expectations.
My office has been in contact with the office of the federal minister, Jenny Macklin, and I am looking forward to a cooperative approach to this issue from our federal counterparts. There are many good people working to resolve youth issues in Alice Springs, however, clearly more needs to be done and in a more coordinated and effective fashion.
I will outline my approach to achieving real results for the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia. I am advised that as of last Thursday police in Alice Springs have significantly increased their presence in the central business district and that this will be ongoing for the summer period. Having as many police as possible on the streets provides the backbone of any response. I was in Alice Springs to do the markets on the weekend and was in the mall opening an art exhibition and stayed around with friends where I saw the police patrolling the mall on Saturday night. I am also advised that Alice Springs police have agreed to establish a dedicated youth liaison officer, which was a key request to me from youth service providers in Alice Springs. This will help to improve coordination and communication between different providers and agencies, which has been an ongoing problem.
I am of the strong view that some immediate additional measures need to be investigated, including improved lighting throughout the town; effective implementation of a security focused patrol service to supplement the work of the police; and a dedicated youth services coordinator, employed by government but outposted in consultation with Alice Springs Town Council, to improve coordination of youth services in the region. However, I am most concerned to ensure that we respond in a way that is supported by the broader Alice Springs community and those working in the field.
For this reason I will be leading the following approaches. First, a meeting with senior decision-making officers in key agencies and service providers will be convened as soon as possible – before Christmas, to develop a straightforward, no nonsense plan to address youth antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. This will not be another academic planning exercise and it will definitely not be a talk fest. I am suggesting that the group develop five key strategies that are clear and measurable. It will be independently facilitated, at government expense, to merge the achievable proposals for immediate, real and sensible action. I will be announcing the independent facilitator in the next few days.
Second, immediately following the development of this action plan, I will convene a meeting of the five MLAs based in Alice Springs and the minister for youth services to consider an action plan and arrive at bipartisan support of its implementation.
Third, following this process, as the Minister for Central Australia, I will champion the implementation of the plan and seek continual reports on the progress of its implementation which I will feedback to everyone in the community. I know that everyone in this parliament is deeply concerned about antisocial and criminal behaviour in our communities. I hope that today marks the beginning of a more effective approach to assisting young people at risk in Alice Springs into productive life paths for themselves, their families, and the entire community.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Central Australia for her statement. I certainly hope it does mark a new era in addressing the problem we face in Alice Springs and Central Australia. We have seen this before; we have seen glossy brochures, lip service and many media releases about how to deal with the problems in Central Australia. On this side of the House, we believe that it has not worked - it has failed, dismally and the problems are getting worse.
We all know the Northern Territory government is not supporting Central Australia. The Minister for Central Australia described her role, in the Alice Springs News, 13 November, as:
… big name, no blanket.
Will Sheila O’Sullivan be the facilitator of this – it is not a summit, what do we call it – the Chat? Okay. Nevertheless, let us hope that it is someone new, with fresh ideas and has not been down the road before.
We wish you the very best, minister. We know the problems, and we believe that you understand the problems better than some of your colleagues. We are prepared to work with you to get these results and we will be right there behind you if you need a hand.
Ms ANDERSON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex and my shadow. Sadly, I know the problems are real in Alice Springs. I was in the street again on Saturday night and Sunday until 1.30 am with friends of mine and the problem is still there. These are people coming in from remote Aboriginal communities who are causing all these problems in our town. With the support of my colleagues and this government, I will be working to make sure that Alice Springs is safe and hope that my shadow and the other members of this parliament work with me to make sure that we support our town and the community in Alice Springs. They are crying out for help and this is an initiative that has been taken by Youth Services.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Vietnam – Cattle Trade Delegation
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I report to the Assembly on my recent visit to Vietnam and progress that has been made on developing a new market for our live cattle trade.
The live cattle trade is worth over $200m to our economy annually and employs thousands of people across the vast pastoral properties of the Northern Territory. As a risk management strategy, considerable effort will be put towards mitigating our reliance on the substantial Indonesian market.
I visited Vietnam recently where I witnessed the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Territory’s live cattle industry, the Khanh Hoa Trading and Investment Company and the Mid Vietnam Live Cattle Breeding Corporation for the establishment of the cattle feedlot project in the Khanh Hoa province of Vietnam. This MOU provides a solid foundation for the development of a commercial live cattle trade between the Territory and the Khanh Hoa province.
In March 2007, a combined Northern Territory industry and government delegation travelled to Vietnam with a range of purposes, including scoping the possibility of the Territory establishing a good trading foothold in Vietnam with a focus on live cattle exports. The then Chief Minister led another delegation to Vietnam in August 2007, and in March 2008 a joint ministerial/industry delegation presented a series of seminars to potential importers in Vietnam detailing the live export and feedlot processes. A direct outcome of those seminars was a follow up visit to Darwin by Khanh Hoa Trading and Investment Company to study the Territory’s cattle industry and export operation.
The delegation then travelled to Indonesia to inspect the feedlot infrastructure to gain a better understanding of how the industry might operate in Vietnam.
Whilst in Australia, the delegation attended a number of briefings on the Northern Territory pastoral industry and live export processes, and inspected export yards and cattle loading facilities in Darwin, as well as a visit to Camfield Station.
In Indonesia, they inspected two feedlots, each with different operational styles and management structures. This enabled a broad picture to be painted for the delegation of the options available when considering what might best work in their environment in Vietnam. A significant component of the feedlot visit was that the delegation saw cattle in one feedlot that had originated from the cattle station they had visited two days prior in the Northern Territory, highlighting the seamless nature of the supply chain and the quality control processes in place to maximise the performance of cattle throughout their transfer from our cattle properties into South-East Asian feedlots.
In July of this year, officers from my department undertook a feasibility study for a proposed cattle feedlotting/slaughter business venture in the Khanh Hoa province in Vietnam. The purpose was to provide an objective appraisal of the economic and other factors required to be considered by the Khanh Hoa Trading and Investment Company prior to their proposed establishment of a live cattle importing venture.
Following our visit to Vietnam earlier this month, our primary role going forward will be to monitor progress and facilitate resolution of issues where we can. In the first instance, it will be necessary to ensure that, through a mix of commercial arrangements with our industry and Meat and Livestock Australia, technical assistance is provided where needed.
Aside from the MOU signing, whilst in Vietnam, I met with the Vice Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Hon Vu Van Tam, and we discussed issues surrounding the finalisation of a suitable Vietnamese health protocol for live cattle imports, and that protocol is now being fast-tracked. I also met with the Vice Minister for Industry and Trade, Hon Mr Nguyen Thanh Bien, to discuss strengthening links between our economies across a range of areas including international education, tourism and sporting exchanges.
It was a short but valuable trip, and I believe that we have reached a significant milestone for the establishment of a live cattle trade between the Northern Territory and Vietnam, a benefit for both our economies.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for Primary Industry for his report this morning. It is very important that the Northern Territory continue to promote its live cattle export industry overseas. It is a boost to our economy to have large amounts of money coming in. The production value from NT cattle is $238m this year.
It concerns me that whilst it is imperative to have these overseas markets, there is some evidence to suggest that demand is outstripping supply in the Northern Territory, and that we need to focus on making our cattle industry far more effective and viable. It seems that this government is intent on paring back our research and development capability in the Northern Territory. We have been paring back services at Berrimah Farm and, without the research and development going in to these aspects of cattle, we will be left floundering. We will be left in the wake of other states who are promoting the wellbeing of their livestock better than we are. We need to focus on what is happening within the Northern Territory to provide the base, the support, and the foundation, for a continued increase in the viability of our cattle industry overseas.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank the member very much for his support. It is true that demand outstrips supply and will continue to do so. We are working very hard to ensure that our cattle industry can meet that demand.
Despite the uninformed comments about Berrimah Farm, most of the research on cattle takes place at Kidman Springs and Owen Springs, not at Berrimah Farm. However, we are working very hard to identify alternative markets to Indonesia. I recall that when the land market collapsed, people were shooting their own animals on their farms, and mutton was selling for 50/kg in the supermarkets. If the Indonesian market collapses, I hope the member for Katherine likes meat as there will be a lot available in the Territory because they will not be able to sell it anywhere else. That is reason we undertook this trip. It is far from a junket, as some of the members opposite said. I invite them to come with me in visiting three cities in three days; it is not what I call a holiday or junket - but it is bloody hard work.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
TABLED PAPER
Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2008-09
Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2008-09
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I table the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2008-09.
Mr Elferink: That is a bit earlier than expected.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection. It is earlier than expected because, as the member for Port Darwin knows, I am travelling to a Treasurer’s conference this week.
MOTION
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2008-09
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2008-09
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
The mid-year report satisfies the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, and provides updated financial information for 2008-09 through to 2011-12. It also meets the Territory’s mid-year obligations under the Uniform Presentation Framework agreement.
The 2008-09 mid-year report incorporates:
the outcome for the 2007-08 financial year;
In addition, this report provides updated information on both the Territory’s economic and fiscal outlook.
The revised estimates contained within this report coincide with a period of unprecedented stress in both the global and Australian economies. Economic growth in Australia, as forecast in the Commonwealth’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2008-09 report, is expected to slow in 2008-09, with only a moderate increase predicted for 2009-10. This downturn has affected all states and territories in reduced GST revenue and lower investment returns. While the Territory is not immune to this downturn, it is well placed to withstand the effects. The adherence to sustainable fiscal responsibility has resulted in six successive cash surpluses, with debt levels, when measured as a ratio to revenue, at historically low levels.
The key fiscal highlights in the report include:
significant operating surpluses are still predicted for 2008-09 and all forward years;
Further details on the fiscal outlook are contained later in this statement.
In this report, actual economic outcomes for 2007-08, as reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, are included, as well as revised forecasts for the 2008-09 year. For 2007-08, Gross State Product growth is recorded at 3.9%, 1.1 percentage points higher than the growth rate estimated at budget time, with a significant contribution from machinery and equipment investment by major mine operators, and a larger than estimated contribution from nett exports. Employment growth is reported at 5.9%, higher than the 4.8% growth estimated at budget time, due to a strong growth in resident employment across a broad range of industries.
For 2008-09, Treasury has updated the economic indicator forecast provided at the time of the budget. These revisions highlight the effect of increased global uncertainty and cost pressures, as well as continuing confidence in the Territory’s economy. Gross State Product in 2008-09 is forecast to increase by 4.5%, revised down from the 6.6% forecast in the May budget, but still twice the expected national average. The downward revision for growth in 2008-09 reflects the higher than estimated outcome for 2007-08, tempered by increased global uncertainty, tighter access to credit, impacting both businesses and consumers, and lower commodity prices. Nevertheless, the Territory economy in 2008-09 will continue to be supported by strong growth in nett exports, impacted positively by the lower Australian dollar.
Construction activity, employment growth and population growth are expected to remain strong. Investment expenditure will be supported by continuing work on the Darwin Waterfront development, the Bonaparte Gas Pipeline project, the GEMCO Refinery Expansion and the Montara Oil Field development. Public investment will also remain at high levels, supported by the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program (SIHIP), Power and Water Corporation infrastructure investment and a record capital works program.
State Final Demand, a measure of the demand for goods and services in an economy, remains unchanged from the budget. While total consumption expenditure is forecast to increase in 2008-09, the modest decline in State Final Demand reflects the impact of total investment expenditure returning towards long run levels.
Employment is forecast to increase by 2.5% in 2008-09, unchanged from the budget forecast. Employment in the Territory is at record levels, with high participation rates and very low unemployment. The constraint to increasing total employment is finding workers. Population growth is forecast to strengthen to 2% to December 2008, stronger than the budget forecast of 1.9%. The improvement is due to higher rates of interstate and overseas migration.
The year-on-year inflation to December 2008 is forecast to be 4.1%. The inflation outlook reported at the time of the budget was that moderating growth and housing prices and tight monetary policy by the Reserve Bank of Australia would offset rising fuel prices and would lead to a fall in the Darwin inflation rate over 2008.
While the contribution of house price growth has moderated, this has been offset by stronger growth in rents than forecast at the time of the budget. Similarly, at the time of the budget, the outlook was for oil prices to average $US78 per barrel in 2008; to October 2008, oil prices have averaged $US111, which flows through to higher fuel, food, and transportation costs.
In addition, the 30% depreciation of the Australian dollar since September 2008 will mean an increase in the cost of imported goods and services, a substantial portion of the CPI basket.
I return to the updated fiscal outlook. The general government sector cash outcome for 2008-09 and all forward years has been revised downwards, as a result of reduced GST revenue from the Commonwealth, due to the downturn in the Australian economy. This downward revision is more pronounced in 2008-09, as it incorporates the additional $100m carryover of expenditure from 2007-08, as highlighted in the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. However, over the budget cycle, the cash position is expected to return to a surplus position in 2009-10.
The projected cash outcome from a $47m deficit for 2008-09 is a reduction of $56m on the $9m surplus estimated at budget time. This is represented by an increase of $184m to operating payments, partially offset by an increase in operating receipts of $127m. The increase in operating receipts is a result of an increase in specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth of $102m, due to new agreements being finalised or renegotiated, largely related to education and health, including funding for the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
An upward revision to mining royalties of $88m, associated with increased mining production and higher collections received year-to-date; offset by lower than anticipated GST revenue of $48m, due to a reduction in the Commonwealth’s estimates of the national GST pool caused by the downturn in the Australian economy; and lower income tax equivalents and dividends of $17m, largely associated with the dividend moratorium provided to the Power and Water Corporation to support capital investment.
Payments for 2008-09 have increased as a result of government decisions of $33m, including the 2008 election commitments and the Buildstart Scheme; the carryover of expense obligations from 2007-08 of $100m, largely related to the timing of delivery of Commonwealth funded programs; and payments of $74m, related to additional specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth.
On an accrual basis, the nett operating balance remains in surplus in all years, while the fiscal balance is now expected to remain in deficit before returning to a small surplus in 2011-12. The positive operating balance and improving fiscal balance over the budgetary cycle indicates that the Territory’s aim of a balanced position for both measures by 2012-13 remains achievable.
Nett debt at the non-financial public sector is expected to be largely in line with that projected at budget time, despite the downward revision to cash targets brought about by the current economic conditions. When measured as a ratio to revenue, nett debt is estimated to be 39% by 2011-12, which still represents an improvement of 28% on the 67% recorded in 2001-02.
Like all governments, the Territory’s investments have also been affected by the financial crisis. As at 30 June 2008, total investments of the Northern Territory government were valued at $1.112bn, compared to an estimate of $1.089bn at 31 October. This negative return of 2.7% compares favourably to a 23% drop for the Australian Securities Exchange over the same period. Over the last five years, the Territory’s average return on the total investment portfolio has been 6.5%. Nett debt plus employee liabilities is expected to continue to fall, in line with budget time estimates over the forward years to 103% by 2011-12. As foreshadowed in the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and the 2008 Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook Report, the reduction in the bond rate used in valuing the Territory’ superannuation liability, as required by accounting standards, largely accounts for the increase on the 2007-08 outcome of 89%, back to budget time estimates.
In conclusion, the 2008-09 mid-year report provides further evidence of this government’s adherence to fiscal responsibility which underpins our commitment to maintaining strong fiscal strategy principles, whilst promoting economic activity and growth for the Territory. By continuing to manage the Territory’s finances responsibly, this government has maintained its trend toward achievement of all fiscal targets, whilst continuing to stimulate the Territory’s economy and provide for all Territorians. This takes on added importance, given the recent downturn in both the global and Australian economies which has affected all jurisdictions, including the Territory. Whilst this presents challenges to our budget, with economic growth in the Territory estimated to be twice the national average and careful financial management over recent years, we are well positioned to deal with this.
Madam Speaker, I commend the 2008-09 Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE BILL
(Serial 14)
(Serial 14)
Continued from 22 October 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, today’s debate and the consideration of this bill is a very serious and important matter for Territorians, and it strikes me that people who watch these matters have been let down by this government. Once again, it appears that we have a government prepared to say what is necessary to achieve a perception.
I believe it was established in 2001 that whistleblowers’ legislation would be developed, but time has proceeded slowly - even slower with the development of this bill.
Any assertion that this is good and we have done it, remembering that this is the third term of the Labor government and granted that a previous administration did not bring forward whistleblowers legislation, is academic. The matter at hand is that we have legislation now; legislation that has been promised, anticipated, and expected. Then the Treasurer described this on the news today as: ‘middle of the pack’, which is another way of saying mediocre or lacklustre - a safe option for government. That is the greatest concern with this. Here is an opportunity to do what is right; what the community expects, and for which standards have been established around the country, and recently assessed by the Australian Research Council.
This government, with all its delays of this ‘slow train coming’, had the opportunity to assess Whistleblowing in the Australian Public Sector, the first report from the national research project Whistling While they Work, and to adopt systems that would be the envy of other jurisdictions, and to provide real protection for those who speak up. However, it appears not to have taken heed of this report which highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses of different systems around the country. It is quite disturbing for whistleblowers’ legislation to be safe, middle of the pack, and lacklustre, when it comes to the intent, attitude, and the courage of government to do the right thing. They have had the opportunity and failed when it comes to these aspects.
This government has spoken much of transparency and I will quote from an address by Senator John Faulkner when he launched Whistling While they Work:
- … accountability is a fundamental underpinning of democracy. And we cannot have accountability without appropriate transparency. Public interest disclosure
protections are an important part of transparency and accountability, which are in turn critical to both effective and responsible public administration.
There are a number of issues that we will go through in the amendments in the committee stages which would enhance transparency and allow this government to stand more confidently and comfortably with the use of that word, because they would allow greater transparency and therefore, greater protection for those who feel the need to speak up in the public interest. There is a famous quote that many would be familiar with - I trust it is more than just words - by Edmund Burke who said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. In Whistleblowing in the Australian Public Sector, Dr A J Brown from ANU, said:
- Certainly, in the view of the Whistling While they Work project team, there will always be a legitimate role for some public whistleblowing - a fact that needs to be
recognised in any credible whistleblower protection regime.
This is the opinion of a team tasked by the Australian Research Council to develop a best practice public interest disclosure model for Australia. Here was an opportunity for government to back slogans with substance, but they have failed to do so. However, not pre-empting the decisions that government may make as we go through the amendments in the committee stage, maybe there is an opportunity for some improvements to be taken on board. This team spent three years researching every aspect of whistleblowers’ legislation in Australia and overseas.
Who are whistleblowers? The research by the ARC into whistleblowing in the public sector discovered that the majority of whistleblowing starts and ends with internal reporting of an issue, with most employees using the organisational chain to raise concerns over practices. The ARC study revealed that of the public employees surveyed, 61% witnessed serious wrongdoing, with only 28% actually reporting wrongdoing. Of those that reported - this is the concern - only 1% went to an external body, usually the media, generally when every other avenue had failed. Why only 1%? It is not hard to understand. Perhaps those who are in government, with a temptation to protect power, would use that power to ensure that they are not held to a level of scrutiny.
For someone to feel so driven, that they must go to the media, for the public interest, is an extraordinary person indeed. They go exposed and unprotected, and sadly, there are cases and matters, great and small, even in the Northern Territory, which weigh heavily upon them, but the difficulty they face in taking it further, without any protection, must weigh heavily on some of our citizens. Here is an opportunity to provide them with the protection so that civic institutions can be protected.
The government’s bill allows public officials to blow the whistle on other public officials or government agencies that are engaged in corruption or malpractice. The government’s bill fails to address that the Territory government awards contracts worth millions of taxpayer dollars to private or semi-private organisations to provide goods and services on its behalf. There is no level of protection under the government’s bill to protect an employee of a private company who blows the whistle on corruption and malpractice in this domain.
In a submission by the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights to the House of Representatives inquiry into whistleblowing, the point was made that the location of the whistleblower is irrelevant. An external supplier of legal services who discovered an abhorrent breach in the law should still both blow the whistle and have their interests protected in doing so. This would then protect the key disconnect between government and the significant amount of work that is procured by the government but provided by third party private corporations.
It is worth noting, that the provisions for including private contractors providing services to the government have been included under our amendments, however, the government’s bill would not protect the employees, for example, of St John Ambulance or nursing agency staff that witnessed or reported wrongdoing in our hospitals. These contract employees work along side our public sector nurses and medical staff and are employed with public funds but, because their employer is under contract to the government, they would not be protected for any form of whistleblowing. Our amendments would assist in providing that necessary protection.
The same would be true of road crews and engineers that are contracted to build the Territory’s roads and construction crews that are building houses and schools in remote communities on behalf of a government department. The location should not be an issue. If the government was serious about promoting an open and accountable government, it should be ensuring that everyone who is directly or indirectly paid by the taxpayer is protected when they see practices that affect the safety of Territorians or the misuse of public funds.
This is not an effort to curtail any profit margins that a private sector company may be able to achieve; that is the nature of private business. These contractors and their employees are under the direction of public bodies, so there must be protection when they see malpractice and corruption, just like their public sector colleagues.
An important aspect, in providing the ultimate protection of our citizens, and the institutions and agencies that we construct to deliver services for Territorians, is the capacity for someone who has raised a concern to disclose that concern to a third party. The Territory government forwarded this bill over a month after the publication of the ARC report and still managed to leave out any avenue for the person to take their disclosure to the media as a last resort. Why would that be? As the Treasurer said in the news this morning: ‘it is middle of the pack’, or mediocre or safe for government. Safe to prevent someone going to the media, if they feel there is a reasonable case for it, and be protected.
Why would it not provide that opportunity? I think the answer is obvious. It wants to stay middle of the pack, to have a Clayton’s whistleblowers regime, so it can say it has done it. There were opportunities to lift the bar and set something of a standard that achieves the rhetoric of government in terms of transparency and the ultimate protection. There were opportunities to do that, but it failed.
Some high profile cases, where there were attempts to rectify the problem through internal means, prove that disclosure to the media is the only option to change these damaging practices. Sadly, there are examples to demonstrate that there is the need for the escalation. I have had the very good fortune to meet Nurse Toni Hoffman, an Australian Local Hero, who was recognised by the Australia Day Council for her achievements. I sat beside her and heard her story about being burdened by what she had seen. When she began to have it investigated and inquired upon internally, she found that she then became the target, which was immensely difficult. She was brought into question, while she was going through the process that was available to her. That was in Queensland, which some commentators regard as having the better model.
It was not until she took the immense personal risk - because of her courage - to step out of any protection that was available and which was not affording any justice or recognition for the serious issues relating to Dr Death, and went to a member of parliament - unprotected. Those issues then became public through parliamentary privilege. She was still unprotected and it was not until the media became involved that the system charged with the responsibility of justice and bringing to light these horrible matters in Queensland kicked in to gear. Until that point there was no justice and in fact, the one who blew the whistle became the target.
The Queensland model may have some merit, but there is a strong argument, that if there is the unsatisfactory weighing of the matters raised, then there should be the possibility of escalating, in the interests of defending public interests and the public good and the person blowing the whistle should also be protected. It is not the interest of government that is at stake here, it is the interests of the public - the citizen.
There is another issue in Australian Customs that members may be aware of. Allan Kessing, a customs employee at Sydney Airport, wrote two reports. This is another example are of a public servant who, because of his conscience and his sense of what is right and fair, felt that he must do what was right. These reports, which included the issuing of security passes to illegal immigrants and people who do not even exist, were rejected by customs officials.
After his report was rejected he passed the information on to the media, but as he was an employee of a Commonwealth agency he was not protected for this disclosure. While supported by his colleagues, he was the only one who went forward to the media. How many others would have observed this but felt constrained and afraid to take the next step and satisfy the issues of conscience and do the right thing? They had to weigh it up in terms of their income, the protection at work – they held back. That is why only 1% step forward and I admire those people immensely. They need to be protected.
He was supported by his colleagues, but was the only one who went forward to the media. He was close to retiring and that is why he chose to take that next step. Others probably had mortgages and kids and they were uncertain about their own future and the threats that may be issued. Ministers maybe aware of threats that can pass through the system – subtle threats that can be echoed down the chain – keep your head in, do not speak on that matter – and that culture can be easily fed and sustained. That is why only 1% will step forward and if you are fair dinkum you need to provide protection for those who are burdened by conscience when they need to speak up.
That is why there is an opportunity to provide that protection, to protect the public; not to be middle of the pack, mediocre, or safe - safe for government - government protecting its power base is not the object of the exercise. The exercise is to use that power for good and to protect good citizens who want to step forward.
Another very disturbing case is that of Milton Orkopoulos, a New South Wales MP, and this one should weigh quite heavily on us. Gillian Snedden helped expose her boss, Milton Orkopoulos, a convicted paedophile. She first raised the allegations with Orkopoulos and then another member of parliament. She was assured that the matter had been dealt with, but when she was contacted by police after more allegations, she realised nothing had been done and began helping police.
Can you see that there is an interest within the organisation to protect itself, and by doing so, place young people at great risk? They would weigh up someone who is a convicted paedophile – this is the sort of issue that we need to recognise when we are crafting these instruments: ‘Am I going to protect my own power and in doing so, protect power, not inquire into issues of paedophilia and extraordinarily assist and allow that to occur?’ They made that judgment and chose not to investigate. The one who raised their voice – what happened? They were assured, ‘Do not worry, it is being looked into’. She discovered, after accepting those assurances – and I am sure that person was looked in the eye and told, ‘Do not worry, it is all being looked after. Do not be concerned about that’. But what happened? She found out later that it had not been looked into at all. People were prepared to put that undercover and continue on, in the interests of power, therefore leaving exposed, vulnerable young people. For her efforts, she was eventually made redundant - this is in Australia - while colleagues who remained silent kept their jobs and received promotions.
I do not want to see that happen here. We will have assurances that this is a little different and that is not the case, and so on. To be absolutely sure that we can provide the highest level of protection, we need to take it to the next step, and not be in the ‘middle of the pack’, as the member for Karama is happy to describe it. I would be appalled if I was Chief Minister and I had a spokesman saying, this is pretty good, it is ‘middle of the pack’, it is really mediocre.
You had the opportunity to lift it up to a new level and provide the ultimate protection, so that you feel you have done the right thing. You had that opportunity because there has been this high level report and investigation into practices around the country - a perfect opportunity; perhaps that is what you were waiting for. It was in 2001 that the former Chief Minister made these pronouncements. Then the slow train came along and since then there have been other developments - three years of research and then the report - here is the opportunity you have been waiting for, in 2008, to incorporate some of these. So you could be seen to be a Territorian who takes these issues very seriously and, even at a risk to government, choose to do the right thing.
Hopefully, with the amendments, which will be considered by honourable members during the committee stages, there is the opportunity to provide a higher level of protection, so we can walk away from this parliament knowing we have established something which is at a higher level than just mediocre and ordinary.
Another aspect is the reporting. The government’s bill has gone a little way to ensuring that the commissioner reports to the discloser - that is important. However, it only requires that the person making the disclosure be contacted in very limited circumstances and with very few definite time frames. The bill requires the commissioner to report to the person making the disclosure in the following circumstances: within a reasonable time after the completion of the investigation; or if the commissioner decides not to investigate a disclosure, he must report back to the whistleblower within 14 days of that decision.
If a person has stuck their neck out and reported malpractice or corruption within their organisation, they would want to know that it has been received and when they can expect an answer. Reporting requirements are especially important in cases where an investigation into a matter finds there is no wrongdoing or no reason to take any further action. It is very important to keep people informed; it is especially important in cases where someone has taken an extraordinary step to report a matter of corruption or malpractice within their workplace. They need to be given feedback within discrete time frames. I am concerned about the looseness of this part of the bill. Hopefully, with the amendments, that can be tightened up.
There is a need for this, which is highlighted in the submission by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Office to the House of Representatives inquiry into whistleblowing, which recognised the importance of reassuring a discloser during the whistleblowing process that the investigation is being taken seriously, and, I quote:
- This would include keeping the whistleblower informed of how the matter is being progressed and providing them with reasons for any findings and any decisions to take
or not to take action.
The report continued by stating that:
- Keeping the whistleblower informed in this way will help to minimise dissatisfaction with the whistleblowing process and hopefully minimise the risk of inappropriate disclosure
of information.
It is a basic people management issue. I urge government to consider these amendments so that there are some constraints, some discreteness about the time frames by when the report should come back to the discloser. A person who has observed something and wants to make it known to the commissioner, cannot be left out to dry; you must manage that very carefully. Having in place discrete time frames would assist in reassuring that person, but would also ensure that we manage it well and achieve the objective in an expedient way.
I have outlined some significant concerns; there are some serious deficiencies in this. Given the opportunity to be in government and to be Chief Minister and look at this bill, I would have to do the right thing and include the amendments that will be referred today. If you think that this is some kind of word game, or a debating club - it is not. We are talking about whistleblowers, people who have made their way to us as members of parliament. We need a process that enables us to sift, measure, weigh, and assess, what are sometimes serious matters.
Having met Toni Hoffman, I know what she went through and I know how difficult it was for that member of parliament to carry those concerns through. You need to take a step of faith and know that the person needs to be given the extra time, particularly when you are in a culture or organisation where all sorts of measures and pressures can be applied to derail and destabilise someone who has dared to speak up. This could happen in the Northern Territory, honourable members, and it would be fitting on our conscience to ensure that we provide complete protection for someone who does take that additional step.
There are a number of other amendments that would also find us able to achieve that higher position, rather than the middle of the road and the mediocre position that the member for Karama and this government is quite happy to adopt. I am not, and if these amendments are not adopted, they will have to be taken on board, at some future stage, if there is a change of government, because it would be the right thing to do.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the introduction and debate on the whistleblowers’ legislation that my colleague, the Attorney-General, has brought before this House. Ultimately, it is up to the Attorney-General to discuss the merits or otherwise of the amendments proposed by the opposition.
It is a historic day. This is the first time since self-government that any government has introduced whistleblowers’ legislation. I am proud to be the Chief Minister of the government that said, very soon after the August election, it would bring this legislation forward and introduce it before the end of the year. This comes on top of an enormous amount of parliamentary reform, parliamentary scrutiny, and transparency that we, as a government, introduced in our first two terms. Fundamentally, the accountability and the transparency of the government and this parliament is light years away from what we inherited when we came to government in 2001.
Mr Elferink: That is garbage. How many gag motions have we seen in the last two weeks?
Mr HENDERSON: We introduced Freedom of Information legislation - and I hear the wailings of the member for Port Darwin. I have been around the Territory long enough, and an observer of politics before coming into this parliament, and know that introduction of FOI legislation was part of the Country Liberal Party platform for many years. The CLP government of the day never introduced it; their parliamentary wing ignored its own platform, and whatever the structures are of the CLP, they were saying, we must introduce FOI legislation, but it was roundly ignored and never introduced - we have introduced that.
We have debated the formation of the Estimates Committee over and over again. We have opened up the parliament to television cameras and audio streaming, and we will have Internet video streaming. When the CLP were in government, it would not even let in the television cameras.
One of the things that we are very proud of is the introduction of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, to prevent what occurred to the eternal shame of the last CLP government, legislation to promulgate a budget in this House that, in part, was doctored up for presentation purposes and which did not go to the reality of the state of the budget of the day. That can no longer occur. Budget documents and the budget are Treasury documents, not government documents.
We are now introducing whistleblowers’ legislation. We proudly support this legislation and we will debate, with genuine consideration, the amendments put forward by the opposition. Although, I believe there were 18 amendments, Attorney-General, dropped on us late last night, which shows that the opposition did not want us to seriously consider them, but we have considered them and we will have a considered response.
This legislation ensures that if public servants have concerns regarding improper or illegal conduct involving: allegations of bribes, improper inducements, other forms of dishonesty, inappropriate bias, breach of public trust or misuse of confidential information, involved with substantial misuse or mismanagement of public resources, a substantial risk to public health or safety, a substantial risk to the environment or substantial maladministration that specifically, substantially, and adversely affects someone’s interests, they can bring them forward and have them dealt with in a completely confidential manner – this legislation covers a broad and comprehensive set of conducts.
This legislation will now exist, where, since self-government, it has not existed in the Northern Territory. These are specific and significant reforms that we are debating today. The Information Commissioner will apply a threshold test of criminal or dismissible or substantial misconduct when determining whether to investigate a complaint.
Without going into the substance of the committee stage amendments proposed by the opposition, I will pick up on what I thought was a strange contribution by the Leader of the Opposition, when he talked about Milton Orkopoulos and the appalling criminal acts that he committed on young people.
Those are criminal issues and they should have been referred immediately to the police for investigation, not a committee of parliament or an MLA. These types of allegations, or even a remote suspicion that paedophile acts are being committed - heaven help by members of parliament, anyone in the public service or society generally, the public service does employ many people who have contact with children - are not issues for the FOI Commissioner, they are issues for the police and to say …
A member: Need the protection of government.
Mr HENDERSON: … so speaks a former police officer. I trust the police to conduct confidential investigations, to protect not only the person who has come in with the complaint, but also to bring forward that evidence to the court to secure a conviction. I do trust the police to conduct those investigations appropriately, as it is a court of law that needs to deal with paedophiles, not a committee or member of parliament, a Freedom of Information Commissioner or a whistleblowers commissioner - it is the police.
Mr Elferink: It would be wrong then for a member of parliament to ring up the police commissioner and ask about an alleged paedophile would it?
Mr HENDERSON: And there speaks another former police officer and I would have thought he would have known better as well.
Mr Elferink: Tell us about the phone call that Clare Martin made to the Police Commissioner about an alleged paedophile.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Mr Elferink: Outrageous hypocrisy Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin - I am not going down this debate - was briefed by the Police Commissioner. Those are issues to be dealt with by police, not whistleblowers commissioners, or FOI commissioners. If the opposition believes that public servants should be dealing with those types of issues and not the police, I will leave them to explain publicly why they have that particular position.
This is about giving public servants absolute confidence, for the first time, if they believe they have evidence of any substantial misconduct, that it will be dealt with confidentially and they will be protected by the Information Commissioner. There are significant penalties in the bill if the person’s confidentiality is breached, or if there are any decisions by their employer that adversely affect that person as a result of their complaint.
It is an historic day, Madam Speaker. I commend the Attorney-General for bringing this bill forward. He has had extensive consultation with a whole range of people regarding this. It is a further step in ensuring the transparency, openness, and accountability of this government – something that the CLP could never even dream about in the 27 years that they were in government. I urge all members to support the bill we are currently debating.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, just because the Chief Minister says something does not mean it is true. I know that he is given to rewriting history, but I urge him to try his best to stick to the truth when doing so.
There are a number of committee stage amendments, which we urge the government to adopt, so that the Chief Minister can go to bed at night thinking, yes, we did a really good job. Because I doubt, when he goes to bed tonight, he will say, in the absence of our amendments, what a good job he did. How can he possibly say that? Because we have waited seven years and this bill is a far cry from what it should be, from what you have promised, and what the Australian Labor Party has been saying for almost 20 years. I will come to some of those points in a walk down memory lane to see I can move that thing, that presumably some of you have, called a conscience, to see if I can just tweak it a little so that you might squirm and think, ‘Oh, my God what have we become?’
There are a couple of matters, in particular, in the substance of the bill, that I would like to raise. I note that it is proposed that the commissioner has to be satisfied that there is a substantial breach; then he or she will investigate and report to the parliament by way of an annual report. By reporting to parliament, it follows logically that brings it into the public domain. However, there being 12 months in a year, I am compelled to say, as others will, the currency of an issue is lost. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect government’s response to it, noting that this government is lethargic only three months after an election. I presume that this government will similarly respond in a lethargic way to matters raised in annual reports. If an issue comes to the attention of the commissioner early in a 12-month cycle, that matter will not come into the open until the expiration of 12 months or until the commissioner tables a report.
I do not think that serves Territorians very well. Governments respond better to public scrutiny in a timely manner, and traditionally respond badly, in my view and the view of others, when an event has happened 12 months or more ago. Then they tend to squirm and weasel their way around it. If there is a problem, I believe government has the responsibility to deal with it as expeditiously as possible. The opposition thinks a delay of up to 12 months gives government an ‘out’. We have seen this government, over the last seven years, increase its capacity to weasel out of problems that it encounters.
The government says this is terrific, although the member for Karama, in essence, says it is mediocre. The opposition believes that Labor could have done significantly better and could have been true to itself by delivering to this parliament much better legislation, after an almost 20-year wait.
I note that there is a fairly tight definition that the commissioner will be compelled to adhere to. In clause 5 of the bill, the behaviour complained about has to be criminal or substantial maladministration, improper conduct, criminality or a criminal offence. There is a definition of ‘substantial maladministration’, which I am concerned about - we say that is too restrictive. We say that there are types of behaviours which should be complained about, and maladministration is just that - there is not a sliding scale of maladministration. Whether it is substantial or insubstantial, it is still maladministration. I now know why the member for Karama - the would-be next Chief Minister of the Northern Territory; probably mid-next year, I reckon – referred to this bill as ‘middle of the pack’ - read mediocre.
By insisting on this definition – and this is illustrative of the problems contained in the bill – of substantial maladministration, sends a very clear message to the people of the Northern Territory that this government is prepared to countenance maladministration, as long as it is not substantial. There is no sliding scale - misconduct is misconduct, maladministration is maladministration. That is illustrative of why this bill is mediocre.
It is appropriate that I refer to what Chris Warren, Federal Secretary of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance said last month, and we know our amendments address this. I quote from an ABC Online article on 23 October:
- … whistleblowers will not be protected if they go to the media.
And:
- … only public whistleblowing properly exposes wrongdoing.
He continues:
- If there are wrong things happening within the public service, then it shouldn’t be dealt with behind closed doors with a government appointed commissioner;
it should be dealt with in the public.
The people of the Northern Territory have got a right for those things to be dealt with in public. People who bring that wrongdoing into the public sphere should
be rewarded and recognised, not punished.
Despite the somewhat delusional view of the government as a whole, this bill has not pleased everyone. It should have, given the nearly 20-years we have all been waiting for this oft-promised whistleblowers’ legislation.
You had an opportunity to use your wonderful position to produce a ripper of a bill - and you failed. Why? Because, paraphrasing the member for Karama, you are a mediocre lot. You are so mediocre it is embarrassing. If you think that the Territory is served well by a mediocre government, you will be judged at the next election. If you think Territorians deserve a mediocre government then I do not know what you are doing here. However, I digress, Madam Deputy Speaker, my apologies.
Everyone knows, even the most casual observer of politics knows, that governments, regardless of their political colour, respond better to public scrutiny than any other form of scrutiny. If someone dares to argue that with me it will be a very interesting debate. How can it not be so? Governments do respond better to public scrutiny than any other form. You cannot protect the public interests in private.
I note that Dr A J Brown from Griffiths University says that the bill, ‘… needs to be widened to allow people to go public as a last resort and also to give better protection for public servants’. I feel certain that members opposite will not be quoting Dr Brown. Members opposite do not understand, or perhaps within themselves they do, but they are putting forward this public position that this is pretty good, albeit mediocre, legislation. Shame on you.
There are a couple of other areas that shows the government has fallen short. One of the aspects the government’s bill fails to address is that the Territory government awards contracts worth millions of taxpayer dollars to private or semi-private organisations to provide goods and services on behalf of government. There is no level of protection under the government’s bill to protect an employee of a private company who blows the whistle on corruption and malpractice in this domain. My colleagues and I believe that is unfortunate.
Furthermore, when this government’s bill is held up against the ARC best practice guidelines, referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, we know that government contractors are not included in any of the disclosure categories. That is not good enough. When you are looking at best practice elsewhere, if you are happy with mediocrity, we are not.
There is no protection for people who take their disclosure to the media. There are no time frames to release progress reports to the discloser during an investigation - that is not very good, is it?
Disclosures cannot be made by or about former members of the public service when that disclosure is in relation to their former role - that is not very good, is it?
It is curious that the Electoral Commissioner is exempt from disclosures being made about that position, and all information submitted to or created as a result of public disclosure is exempt from the Information Act. They are just some of the difficulties.
On our analysis, the government’s bill will not protect employees, for instance, of St John Ambulance, or nursing agency staff who witness and report wrongdoing in our hospitals. I stress that is our analysis. If the Attorney-General wants to correct that, or elaborate and convince us otherwise in his reply, we will be listening intently.
These contract employees work alongside our public sector nurses and medical staff and are employed with public funds, but because their employer is under contract to the government, they would not be protected for any form of whistleblowing. That is not very good, is it?
Now for the walk down memory lane - I just can not resist it. Members opposite have said and if I heard him correctly, the Chief Minister was saying it was an historic day. Maybe it is for some of the Labor members of this parliament, and Labor members of the rank and file party, but I feel certain it is not for others.
We have waited seven years for this and we, and so many others, are disappointed. I thought that after a seven year wait - since they came into office - the legislation, a) would have been done much sooner; and b) would have been dazzling - great legislation. It is close to Christmas and it is like getting a big Christmas parcel, beautifully wrapped with a big pink bow across the top; then unwrapping it and after an hour of unwrapping, finding a nail clipper with a card saying: ‘Wishing you a Merry Christmas’. Talk about being ripped off. It is underwhelming in the extreme, given the hype – seven years they said: vote for us, vote for us, we will do whistleblowing, and what do they do? Put a nail clipper in a big box. I do not think that is good enough.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … you will get your go, sport. Seven years of government, all those years in opposition and they say: ‘Have a look at this’. But it goes further. Remember Terry Smith? He was Labor leader in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I know Terry, I had a barbeque with him in my home town of Bendigo a couple of years ago; not a bad fellow. However, when Terry was leader …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Hold on! Hold on! Do not go the distance yourself; you can leave if you like. Back when Terry Smith was leader in the late 1980s, early 1990s …
A member: Who has not had a barby with Terry Mills?
Ms CARNEY: I am giving the members opposite a lesson in their own history - I should not be doing it …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … you should be so committed, all you true believers, keeping it real and all that sort of stuff – you should be ashamed.
However, allow me to walk you down the road of nostalgia as we talk about whistleblowers. In the early 1990s, I am reliably informed that Terry Smith promoted honesty and integrity in a document called The Open Book - sounds suspiciously like Mao’s Little Red Book, but I digress - The Open Book: pathways to honest and accountable government. It included, I am reliably advised, he said: ‘Legislation should protect public servants who expose misconduct or inefficiency within government’.
These days, Labor does not want to blow the whistle on inefficiency. Labor does not even want to blow the whistle or have the whistle blown on maladministration; it has to be substantial maladministration. Terry Smith did not use the word ‘substantial’. Back then, when Labor was a better version of itself than it is now, it was: ‘We are going to get on and we want honest, open, and accountable government’. My, the worm has turned.
Brian Ede was another Labor leader. I know Brian, he was from Alice Springs. In 1993, I understand, he said …
A member: You had left already - gone to Coffin Bay.
Ms CARNEY: No, it was before 1993, I cannot quite remember, that I had my 15 months in Coffin Bay and came back to the Territory, after I reported a lawyer who was stealing money from his clients and could not get a job in Port Lincoln.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You want integrity …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … I will give you integrity …
A member: Take it easy.
Ms CARNEY: … and you, my friend, I assume, have removed every mirror in your office and your house because you cannot possibly look at it and say: ‘Hmm, there is a man with integrity’. The government cannot possibly look at itself. In fact, I must give myself an invitation to go up to the government offices at some point and see if they have removed all the mirrors. I wonder whether that is the case.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Anyway, Brian Ede brought up the whistleblowers again in about 1993. Then there was Maggie Hickey. I know these people, although I never met Maggie, their portraits are all lined up outside my office and every morning I say: ‘Good morning, Terry. Good morning, Brian. Good morning, Maggie’ …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Maggie Hickey, a woman much respected on both sides of the House and, I believe, a woman of integrity from what I have read and heard of her. But, Maggie was a died-in-the-wool Laborite and she rehashed whistleblowers as well. There were a number of motions put in the parliament when Labor was in opposition. I believe they probably worked harder then than they do now. They want to knock off early, they do not want to finish the job and lazy Labor is limping listlessly along to the end of the year.
Let us go back to 1996 when Maggie Hickey moved a motion headed, according to the Hansard, ‘Government Accountability’. She said, and I quote:
- The major components of effective whistleblower legislation are that its processes and protection are credible ...
Very important point: are credible:
- … that its processes facilitate correction of the problems …
Very important point:
- … and that it provides methods for public reporting of corrective action.
Another important point. She went on to say that:
- It is a fairly standard piece of legislation for setting in place the checks and balances that are necessary to ensure that every avenue is pursued in providing for open,
honest and fully accountable government.
Since the late 1980s, early 1990s, Labor has been wedded to whistleblowers. Then, after all of the years in opposition, they finally get themselves into government. One of the ways they got themselves into government was issuing papers like this. This is the one you cannot find, I am advised, on the Labor Party website because it was removed, I believe, a couple of years ago. Why, Madam Speaker? They were embarrassed. It is this mirror thing. They could not look at this document with any ounce of integrity or pride.
This one was called Good Government and it has Clare Martin on the front. It talks about really fantastic things like government behaving responsibly, transparently, and to high standards. The whistleblowers get a guernsey in the index; that is how seriously, after all these years, they regarded whistleblowers. True enough, whistleblowers is referred to in the document, and there is no doubt that:
- Labor is also committed to the introduction of legislation protecting 'whistleblowers'. This legislation will protect those who reveal Government and public section …
There is a typo; sector:
mismanagement and corruption.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: This is about you.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms CARNEY: Do not talk about our bill.
Dr Burns: What about your bill?
Ms CARNEY: Go your hardest, sport! Seven years in government and you have had all these challenges - the biggest budget for the fifth floor that the Northern Territory has ever seen; the biggest revenue from all over the place - GST revenue springs to mind, the most revenue that the Territory government has ever received. You are resource rich, but intellectually poor. You are a lazy government, because by the admission of the want-to-be Chief Minister – and I do not know whether you know that some of us are running a book on when she will jump - after seven years you have finally …
Ms Lawrie: Get over it!
Ms CARNEY: Well, you should not say much because you always get yourself into trouble. You say this is a mediocre bill. Shame on you. For the Attorney-General to say: ‘What about your bill?’ Shows you for the man that you are - you are a petty man. This is not about us; this is about you and your history. For almost 20 years, those opposite, rank and file members, are in and out of this Chamber, saying with hand on heart – for those who have them – ‘Believe in us, because we are the true believers and we are going to deliver these reforms because we believe in whistleblowing’. No you do not - not seriously. You have weaselled and fudged, and you have no integrity or credibility. I look forward to the invitation to the government offices so I can do a count of the mirrors, because how on earth you can look at yourselves in the mirrors is beyond me. Good luck at your next party conference. If you still have any true believers signed up to your party, I will bet London to a brick that some of them will be talking about this bill and how you have lost your way.
Do not sanctimoniously lecture us on what we have done. This is about you lot. You cannot believe anything you say and you cannot believe in what you do. The Minister for Central Australia has been trying her best to become a member of the Country Liberals - bagging her own government - to her credit. Of all the members opposite, she is the only one who has had the courage to say: ‘Our government is not doing well, is it?’
Those opposite, her Cabinet colleagues, should listen to the interviews or read the transcripts. My instincts tell me that staff on the fifth floor have been poring assiduously over the transcripts and, presumably, discussions have occurred. I take my hat off to her because at least she is trying – she is only talking the talk at this point and with Labor as a group, you always have to see if you can pick the difference between what they say and what they actually do. So far, she is talking the talk and she knows that there is always a difference between what you say and what you do – it is not just our side and other Territorians who cannot believe what you say - it is one of your own.
Madam Speaker, I have given Labor a journey down its own nostalgia lane. I have speculated on what might be happening on the fifth floor, congratulated the Minister for Central Australia for giving it to her colleagues, and, as best as I can, made the point that not only is this government a failure and a lazy government, three-and-a-bit months after election, but it is also an incompetent one, that does not know its own history and cannot be trusted. Bring on the next election.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I feel like the umpire who has just finished a training session on Wednesday night. However, I digress. It is about whistleblowers but not that type of whistleblower. I do not particularly want to go down memory lanes or blame one party or the other, I want to look at the particular issue that is before us. The legislation has its objects, as it says under clause 3 of the bill:
- (a) to provide for disclosure of improper conduct on the part of public officers and public bodies; and
(b) to protect the persons who make public interest disclosures and others from acts of reprisal; and
The bill has to be judged against the objects of the act, which in general, it does, however, on some key issues, it does not. That is what concerns me. I do note the amendments that the CLP has put forward and, to some extent, I do not see that …
A member: Country Liberals.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, Country Liberals. I do not necessarily see that as opposing the bill; to some extent, it is tightening up certain parts of the bill, which are a concern to me as well.
One of my major concerns is a test for people in my occupation, a member of the Legislative Assembly. I do not believe that the objects of the act can be upheld if a person complains about some conduct of mine. If a disclosure is made under clause 11, ‘How public interest disclosure is made’, it says:
- (1) A public interest disclosure must be made to the following:
- (a) if the disclosure relates to an MLA other than the Speaker – the Speaker;
(b) otherwise – the Commissioner or the responsible chief executive.
The MLAs, presumably because they are a member of parliament, are immediately referred to the Speaker. If you go on further, you ask, what happens then? The bill states:
- … the Speaker may refer it to the Commissioner ...
It concerns me that the word ‘may’ gives the Speaker the right to either deal with it themselves or pass it to the commissioner. The question is, if it is not passed over to the commissioner, what happens to the complaint?
I am not making any inferences to you, Madam Speaker - I am talking in general. In many states, the Speaker is a member of the government. I put forward the scenario of a complaint about a particular member of the government which would go to the Speaker. The Speaker, being a member of the government, may find pressure within the government, whether direct, indirect, or perceived, and the Speaker could say: I am not taking this any further. This could be perceived as a biased adjudication of the complaint.
The Country Liberals are trying to ensure that cannot happen, because if it does not get looked at by the Speaker, it can go to the Commissioner. I believe there needs to be something with more teeth than in the present bill. I believe the public would expect that if someone disclosed about an MLA, they would not be dealt with any differently than if there were a disclosure about another member of the public service. I see that as a weakness in this legislation.
Unless that was changed, I would have difficulty supporting it, because I believe it is a major flaw. It is one rule for people in the public service and another rule for MLAs. Yet, in section 7, ‘Public officers’, it says that:
(1) Each of the following is a public officer:
(a) an MLA;
- (b) a member, officer or employee of a public body;
Therefore, (b), (c) and (d) are dealt with one way, and (a), an MLA, is dealt with in another way. I would prefer that an MLA was dealt with similarly to everyone else, so there was not the possibility that a disclosure against an MLA could be hidden, or disappear into the ether of time because the Speaker did not wish to refer that matter on.
I see that as an omission in the act. Whilst there may be pressure on the Speaker to reveal that there was a disclosure, because that cannot be referred to the press and because the matter is confidential, no one would know there had been a complaint about an MLA. Unless the Speaker mentioned it in parliament or the discloser was brave enough to go to the press - nothing may happen. Also, if they went to the press under this act, they would not be covered by any form of protection. That is a major fault with this legislation. Much of this legislation is good, however, I believe, that you needed a little more to make it better.
The CLP has put forward incentives, to make sure things do not disappear into the bureaucracy of time. So, if there is no indication of anything happening within a certain period, the person may be able to go to the press. That is certainly an incentive to make things move faster. It is the type of thing that would make a government move along a little faster than if it did it under its own power.
There are some issues that I will discuss when it goes to committee stage. I believe it is good that we have brought forward the Public Interest Disclosure Act. We can argue that this should have been brought forward a long time ago or that the previous government, back in the CLP days, should have brought it forward, but to some extent, that is irrelevant. We are bringing forward legislation and we need to debate its merits. We need to debate whether it will satisfy the objects of the act, if it is passed. I believe this is the basis on which we should be debating at the committee stage. Will this act ensure that public interest information disclosed is properly investigated, and that any impropriety revealed is properly dealt with?
The first part: that public interest information disclosed is properly investigated - I believe it has failed in relation to an MLA. The second part: any impropriety revealed by the investigation is properly dealt with - I do not believe there is anything to ensure that issues are dealt with in a reasonable time. Otherwise these issues may be dealt with properly, but it may take two, three, four, or five years? I believe it needs clauses and incentives to make sure that legislation which has nice objectives is written to ensure those objectives are carried out in a practical and timely manner. I will continue this debate during the committee stage.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of electorate officers from the following electorates, Blain, Ms Tasma McCall; Katherine, Mrs Pat Witte; Greatorex, Ms Karen Berry; Braitling, Ms Tanya Turner; Brennan, Ms Amy Sternberg; Fong Lim, Ms Helen Bateman; Goyder, Ms Trish O’Hehir; Port Darwin, Tory Mencshelyi and Ms Alicia Lantry; Sanderson, Ms Fiona Lynch; and Nelson, Ms Kim Lawlor. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE BILL
(Serial 14)
(Serial 14)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I make a few observations and my contribution to this debate regarding the whistleblowers legislation. I cannot help but be struck by the fact that after seven years this is what has been produced for the people of the Northern Territory.
Without going back into the accusations of mediocrity about this bill, one would have hoped for something more substantial from this government, as they have now had seven years to introduce this bill. Whilst we reflect on all of the things the CLP did or did not do in the past, it remains that this government has had an opportunity to introduce this legislation much earlier. I see an opportunity lost, and whilst I appreciate the necessity for a bill of this nature, that necessity has existed for quite some time; perhaps even to a time prior to the current Labor administration of the Northern Territory.
The legislative instrument before this House sets in a fairly straightforward way the structures of how public disclosures should be dealt with, should a person who is in the public service choose to go down that path. It is not something I would expect a public servant would take lightly. The public servant who takes this step would, under any other circumstances, be committing a criminal offence in the Northern Territory. I note, in the operation of this act, that should a public servant choose to go down this path, in circumstances outlined in clause 14(4)(a) and (b), then they will still be committing a criminal offence. Clause 14 sits at the heart of public disclosure legislation.
Clause 14(1) of the bill says:
- A person who makes a public interest disclosure:
(a incurs no civil or criminal liability by doing so; and
(b does not become liable to disciplinary action, or other adverse administrative action, for doing so.
I draw members’ attention to clause 14(4):
- However, subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to:
(a) a public interest disclosure that is an abuse of process; or
(b a public interest disclosure if the discloser knows the information disclosed is misleading.
What this means is that when a person makes a disclosure relying on this legislation, they are relying on the definitional structure of this legislative instrument with a view to making a disclosure, which they hope is a reasonable thing to do. If they get it wrong, then the effect of this legislative instrument is that they will not take succour under clause 14(1). Consequently, they will then be liable, both criminally and civilly, and in a disciplinary fashion, I add, for the disclosure that they have made.
I am aware - I cannot quote chapter and verse – that under the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory, it is a crime for a public servant to make a disclosure. Without the protection of clause 14, a public servant takes an enormous risk in what they are doing. However, that is what this whole issue is about; getting the balance right. I would not argue for one second that government should be made unmanageable by virtue of the operation of a legislative instrument. Government still has to be able to do its job and, in many instances, in a confidential fashion. I have no qualms or problems with that. To allow an instrument to exist on the books which was, by its very nature, a carte blanch for any public servants to make any accusation that they please, would well be a matter of concern.
I note that Douglas and Jones’s Administrative Law, 4th Edition, page 178, uses an interesting quote from The Crucible, where it argues that it should not be open slather for public servants to make disclosures:
- … little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom and common vengeance writeth the law’.
How apt is that? If you did allow a carte blanche arrangement to exist for disclosures to be made, then any vindictive, irresponsible or simply aggressive public servant who was displeased with a decision regarding their department’s operation, could make disclosures and governing would become impossible as a consequence.
However, we have to strike a balance. We need to remember that protecting whistleblowers and this type of legislation, where it exists in other jurisdictions, has been the product of a desire of good and honest public servants to bring corrupt or improper activities, which occur in the public service, to the publics’ attention.
We all remember the Four Corners report - I do not think there is anyone too young - in the late 1980s, The Moonlight State which, ultimately, led to the collapse of the Queensland government. There were shocking findings against people such as the Queensland commissioner and inherent corruption which had percolated through the senior administration of many of the departments and sections of Queensland. It was an awful thing. At the time there were interviews given by senior public servants who were shocked, and rightfully so, by what was happening around them.
Between those two extremes, there has to be an instrument which would enable public servants to step outside the normal mainstream and say: ‘This is wrong. This needs to be addressed’. I believe that this is an attempt by government to achieve it. I wish it could be more than what it is, because we would be one of the last jurisdictions in the country, I expect, to be introducing a legislative instrument of this sort. It would be nice to know that we had the capacity to pick up on those shortcomings in other legislative areas, and not have those shortcomings reflected in this legislation.
Reports have been produced, and I understand that the Leader of the Opposition, as we massage this bill through the committee stages, will ask the government to take on some of the amendments which have been produced, with a view to creating a best practice model. It is interesting that we are on this particular issue at the moment, as it is worth reflecting on what is a best practice model, based on some of the comments that the Chief Minister made earlier on. I will return to those shortly; I will be relying on a Hansard rush that I obtained during the luncheon adjournment.
However, I will now discuss the issue of reprisals, and I am quoting again from Douglas and Jones’s Administrative Law:
- If you are going to sin, sin against God, but not against the bureaucracy - for God will forgive you, the bureaucracy never will …
That is followed by another quote:
- … sometimes complaining about Caesar to Caesar does not work …
I believe this is one of the great flaws that exists in this particular bill.
The issue that I have with this bill, and these are definitional issues, is the definition of who can be the commissioner for these disclosures. As I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition will seek to make that person the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory through the proposed amendments, and there is a reason for that. Under the current structure, the commissioner could be a public servant, and if that is the case, then ‘sometimes complaining about Caesar to Caesar’ not working is a very relevant and real observation.
I draw members’ attention to the comments made by the Chief Minister, immediately prior to the luncheon break, where he attacked the Leader of the Opposition for talking about known offences of paedophilia, were criminal matters that should be reported to police and, indeed, they should be. However, I do wish to point out that, under the legislation that we have before the House at the moment, it contemplates whistleblowing on criminal acts as well. Although we would hope and expect that a person who became aware of that reprehensible crime against children - the sexual abuse of children - would report that matter to police, there is capacity under this legislation, should a person see fit, to use this instrument to bring the matter to the attention of someone else, if they do not have, for argument’s sake, confidence in the police.
That is another important option for people, because there could be a good reason that a person would not want to report a matter of that nature to the police. I will give you an example - and I stress that I am not aware of anything, this is purely a hypothetical example - but what if the person complained about was actually a senior police officer? Where would that person go? If you report it to the police, one would hope that the police would have sufficient integrity to investigate that matter, and I would expect that they do, but you could understand a person’s reticence in those circumstances.
The other reason I obtained the Hansard rush was for the to and fro which I participated in during the Chief Minister’s debate. I am glad that the Hansard rush picked up the interjections I made as the Chief Minister attacked the Leader of the Opposition about the issue of paedophiles. There was an exchange during that between myself and the Chief Minister, where I said that there could be other circumstances in which a member of the police force may choose to use this legislative instrument. The example I point to was the interjection I made: ‘Tell us about the phone call that Clare Martin made to the Police Commissioner about an alleged paedophile’. I made that interjection because if there was an investigation into a paedophile’s activity and a police officer formed an opinion that information had been leaked about the investigation, as a result of poor activity by a police officer on the investigation team, then you could believe that the police officer would be concerned about the structure surrounding the investigation.
I remind honourable members, I believe it was in 2004, that the Chief Minister at the time, Clare Martin, telephoned the Commissioner of Police one evening, on the basis of a rumour she heard, and sought a briefing from the Commissioner regarding a paedophile who was under investigation and who was personally known to the Chief Minister. At that point, the Commissioner made a decision to give her a briefing; he spoke to the Chief Minister. If a member of the police force then wanted to make a statement, or pass on some information about information leaking from a police investigation, one could well understand that police officer’s reticence or reluctance to pass on that information.
Where do they go, in cases like that? We do not have an ICAC or a CJC in the Northern Territory. We do not even have an administrative appeals tribunal. Where would a police officer go if they had that type of information? A briefing had already occurred at the very highest levels of government regarding that matter. This is exactly the type of legislative instrument that is required in these instances.
Without reflecting on the propriety, or otherwise, of that phone call between the Commissioner of Police and the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, I imagine that if the Commissioner for Disclosures under this legislative instrument was the Commissioner of Police, or some other person within the executive arm of government, you could understand why there would be some nervousness on the part of police officers, who are inside that executive arm of government, to report or disclose the matter. Clearly there was a leak from the investigation. How do I know that? Because the Chief Minister said at the time that she had heard a rumour. She had made no attempt, as far as I am aware, to find out the source of that rumour or to describe to Territorians what she did to track down that rumour. I am not aware of any steps by the Commissioner of Police at the time to try to find out what the source of the rumour was.
However, there was clearly a leak from one of the most sensitive investigations in the Northern Territory’s history, and it reached the ears of the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister, rather than sitting on her hands and trying to trace the source of the leak, responded to the leak by ringing up the Commissioner. The Commissioner had a choice when that telephone call was received; he could choose to brief the Chief Minister - that was his call - or he could have told the Chief Minister it was inappropriate for him to comment. Considering the closeness between the individual who was under investigation and the Chief Minister, one would have expected that would be the result. However, that was the Commissioner’s call, and I do not want to reflect on that decision anymore.
However, there was a leak from inside the investigation. The leak was inappropriately dealt with by the Chief Minister at the time. If there was a police officer who knew about the leak or the source of the leak in that investigation, where was that police officer going to go? There is nowhere for that police officer to go, if they form the opinion that the internal structures were no longer sufficient to trace down the leak. It would have been a criminal offence to have leaked that information from the investigation. I am not sure what the results of that investigation were; perhaps the minister would care to enlighten us.
By allowing any public official to become the Commissioner, you are not actually following the spirit of this legislation. There are, as organs of this parliament, several officers attached to this House: the Auditor-General; the health complaints ombudsman and the Northern Territory Ombudsman - who are essentially the same person. They report to this House; they do not report to the government of the Northern Territory, despite the fact that their reports come through ministries. One would hope that there was a vehicle where a person could make a public disclosure, such as the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory – a third party, independent person, not attached to the Executive. This would make me more comfortable with the structure of this legislation.
If you have Caesar as the person who is reported to, you find yourself within the auspices of the quote which I mentioned earlier: ‘sometimes complaining about Caesar to Caesar does not work’. I suspect that if the Executive formed part of this process, people would be more reluctant to blow the whistle than they otherwise might be. Whilst I realise that the legislative instrument before this House seeks to protect whistleblowers from reprisals, what is said in legislative instruments and what is practiced may be two different things. If you look at the history of whistleblowers in this country; they suffer for their choice. It is not a decision I would take lightly at all.
Elements of the reprisal legislation will create a criminal offence. To demonstrate a reprisal you would have to demonstrate some form of intent, or mens rea, on the part of government; when you go through the processes, there has to be a person who leads the reprisal. If punitive action is taken, for example, a person is transferred against their will, you actually have to identify the individual who is engaged in the reprisal, rather than the department itself, in my understanding of how this legislation works. I suspect that would not be an easy thing to achieve, from an evidentiary point of view.
For this reason, I urge honourable members to turn their minds to the amendment which concerns making the Ombudsman of the Northern Territory the Commissioner for these forms of disclosure. The current legislative instrument anticipates that the Administrator will appoint the Commissioner, on the advice of his council - Cabinet, in other words, and you can track that back to the Chief Minister. Ultimately, it will be the Chief Minister who makes the decision on who the Commissioner will be.
If the Commissioner is a public servant, then I am not satisfied that the intent of this legislation has been captured; because it has not. This legislation is supposed to give comfort. If I am sitting there in the public service, looking up the food chain, and I am aware of something which looks, smells, and tastes like corruption, and I discover that the Commissioner - the person I am ultimately expected to turn to in this issue - is not an independent person, but a person who is ultimately appointed by the Chief Minister, then you could understand a decision not to make a disclosure.
This is a matter of great importance. I do not want to engage in the blame or who did what debate and who has or has not produced the best legislation. We have this bill before the House now and it is for us to consider. I believe the amendments the Leader of the Opposition is bringing to this bill are sound and well considered, they are the result of best practice and they are improving what is already a good idea.
I hope that the government does turn a benevolent eye upon the amendments proposed by members on this side of the House. It is about improving the quality and standard of transparency of our government. I hope that this legislative instrument is passed as the best practice model, and not just some run-of-the-mill model. I hope that it does better than other legislative instruments, designed to improve transparency, have done in the past.
Those of us who have used the freedom of information legislation, brought in by the Australian Labor Party government in the Northern Territory, have discovered that you get back massive search bills and, often, all the reasons why you cannot look at documents, or documents with large sections blacked out that look like a World War I soldier’s letter to home from the trenches – by the time it got there, it is mostly black lines and cut out pieces. I hope that this bill will introduce a form of transparency which is better than that. It will not at the moment. It will go some way to improving the lot of whistleblowers in the Northern Territory, but it will not become the best practice model.
Madam Speaker, I urge government and honourable members to turn their minds to the issues I have raised, specifically to give Territorians a best practice model.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General on the Public Interest Disclosure bill. The legislation establishes a practical, fair, and easily understandable system of disclosure about improper conduct of public sector employees and others. This is not to imply such misconduct routinely occurs in the Northern Territory.
Overall, NT public servants are conscientious, impartial, and hard-working, but we need to ensure that an avenue of protection exists for people to refer anything they believe is a problem. People who take this step deserve our full support and assistance. They are taking a brave step; one that could have implications for their career and personal life.
As federal Cabinet Secretary, Senator John Faulkner, said at the recent launch of a major project into whistleblowing in Australia:
- For some Australians, there comes a time in their life when they become aware that a colleague, an employee, an employer, is doing something wrong - perhaps bullying or harassing others in the workplace, perhaps misusing resources or misappropriating funds, perhaps concealing important information because it would have a negative impact on the organisation. In this situation, some people will decide to keep their heads down, turn a blind eye, not get involved.
But some courageous individuals will take a stand. They will report what they have seen. They will - often at personal risk and to personal cost – ‘blow the whistle’.
I consider that the framework the Territory government has introduced and which is being debated today, will help these people come forward, anonymously if necessary, to report what they know and start the process of resolving the problem.
Government recognises that whistleblowers want their complaint to be handled professionally, independently, and by an organisation that has the power to solve the problem. Whistleblowers want legal protections to stop workplace bullying or intimidation following disclosure. This is about providing a process that genuinely improves government accountability and transparency. It is also about affording natural justice to those people who have a complaint levelled against them. As a basic right, they deserve the opportunity to respond to allegations and put their side of the story to an independent investigator. It is hard to do that through competing media headlines.
I look forward to seeing the federal government’s proposed new whistleblower protections, and anticipate that they will pick up some elements of this Northern Territory model which has adopted some of the best components of earlier schemes introduced around the country. I am pleased to support this next step in improving the most open and accountable government in the history of the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am quite keen to have a chat on this whistleblowers legislation, as it is called. Like the Opposition Whip, I am quite dismayed that it has taken the government, since their 2001 election promise, seven years to initiate this legislation. You would think that after seven years this government would have a fair idea about exactly what they want included in the legislation, and that it would be best practice legislation.
I was quite alarmed to hear the Treasurer commenting in the media, saying, it is ‘middle of the pack’ type legislation; it is neither the best nor is it the worst. I believe that is reflective of the government as a whole. It is certainly reflective of the poor minister whose job it is to introduce that legislation. I do not think anybody in this place would say that the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is the worst minister that we have in this country - not by a long shot. Considering the number of Labor governments that we have around in Australia, and particularly when we see some of the headlines in New South Wales, the federal parliament in Canberra, in Victoria; practically every Labor jurisdiction has some pretty serious duds when it comes to Labor ministers.
Neither could it be said that the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is leading the pack. In other portfolios, he is showing that he comes towards the back end of the pack rather than the front end of the pack. Irrespective of that, when you look across the other side and see the talent that he is up against there, he is actually in front of the pack. It is a strange phenomenon.
In the context of this Northern Territory government, he is quite a good minister, and good on him. I do feel sorry that the minister has been given the job of ushering this legislation into parliament, because it is, as the Treasurer said, ‘middle of the pack’, average, mediocre type legislation. There is nothing particularly exhilarating about this legislation, in fact, it is all rather, as the member for Araluen said this morning, it is like getting a big present and finding, after you pull away all the paper and the flashy bits, that you have a pair of nose hair clippers inside with a little congratulations card on it or something like that. It is not living up to its hype.
Ms Carney: We have come to expect that.
Mr TOLLNER: We have come to expect that on a whole range of things. You do not listen to what this mob says, you look at what they do. When you actually analyse this legislation, and I have to admit that I have not gone a long way into analysing it, but I have read information from other people and other organisations who have analysed it – very respected organisations.
In 2005, the Australian Research Council, which is a very well respected organisation, conducted a significant review into elements that would compromise what they term: best practice legislation for protection of public interest disclosures by public servants. Whilst this government’s bill measures up, to some extent, against many of the key areas in their review, there is significant room for improvement, based on the comprehensive research that the ARC did.
I will go through the key weaknesses of the government’s position, when held up against the Australian Research Council’s best practice guidelines - we are not talking about middle of the pack, amateurish or mediocre type guidelines; these are best practice guidelines. There are no time frames to release progress reports to the discloser during an investigation. The discloser does not get any feedback on what has happened with their complaint anywhere through the process.
Disclosures cannot be made by or about former members of the public service, when that disclosure is in relation to their former role. It is also curious that the Electoral Commissioner is exempt from disclosures being made about that position. All the information submitted to or created as a result of a public disclosure is exempt from our freedom of information act. Shame. If this information is proven to be correct, it should be publicly available.
The ARC study revealed that of the public employees surveyed, 61% witnessed serious wrongdoing, with only 28% actually reporting any wrongdoing. Of those who reported, only 1% went to an external body, usually the media, and generally when every other avenue had failed.
The ARC also say that government contractors are not included in any of the disclosure categories. The government’s bill allows public officials to blow the whistle on public officials of government agencies engaged in corruption or malpractice. However, the bill fails to address that the Territory government awards contracts worth millions of taxpayers’ dollars, to private or semi-private organisations, to provide goods and services on behalf of the government, and there is no real level of protection, under this government’s bill, for an employee of a private company who blows the whistle on corruption and malpractice in that domain.
In a submission made by the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights to the House of Representatives inquiry into whistleblowing, they made the point that:
- … the ‘location’ of the whistleblower is … irrelevant. An external supplier of legal services who discovered an abhorrent breach of the law should still both blow
the whistle and have their interest protected in doing so.
This would then address the key disconnect between Government and the significant amount of work that is procured by the government but provided by a third
party private corporation.
I cannot understand why private external bodies - private contractors - are not included in this legislation.
Dr Burns: What is the name of that lawyers group again?
Mr TOLLNER: It should be a group that is familiar to members on the other side, it is the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights. Something I am sure you have heard of. Now in relation to …
Dr Burns: Are they the ones that appeared for Mr Haneef?
Mr TOLLNER: I am not sure, they may well have. The Northern Territory government forwarded this bill over a month after the ARC publication was finalised. Yet, it has still managed to leave out any avenue for the person to take their disclosures to the media as a last resort. The Attorney-General’s office, in their submission to the House of Representatives whistleblowing inquiry, stated that:
- An effective whistleblowing regime should negate the need for aggrieved persons to disclose information to a third party.
Queensland is considered to have the most comprehensive whistleblowing legislation and it is held up as one of the best models in Australia. Despite this, there have been cases, such as the Bundaberg Base Hospital, where the only way the problem has been rectified is for the public servant to stick their neck out and go to the media. Some high profile cases, where after attempts to rectify the problem through internal means, prove that disclosure to the media is the only option to change those damaging practices.
One case is that of ‘Doctor Death’. Nurse Toni Hoffman began making complaints about Dr Jayant Patel in 2004 but was told by hospital management that she was the one with the problem. She was even accused of being a racist. She eventually took her case to a member of the Queensland parliament, who raised the matter under parliamentary privilege. It was not until she revealed the information to a News Limited journalist that a full investigation into Dr Patel and the Bundaberg Base Hospital occurred. Dr Patel was linked to about 87 deaths at the Bundaberg Base Hospital from 2003 to 2005. If Nurse Toni Hoffman had not gone to the media, that case would not have made it into the public domain; she suffered badly.
Another case involves Australian Customs. Mr Kessing, a customs employee at Sydney Airport, wrote two reports that were rejected by customs officials, which included the issuing of security passes to illegal immigrants and people who did not even exist. After his report was rejected, he passed the information on to the media, but as he was an employee of the Commonwealth agency, he was not protected for his disclosure. While supported by his colleagues, he was the only one that went forward to the media as he was close to retiring and was less concerned with safeguarding his career and security. It is a terrible situation when employees have to determine who is closest to retirement or leaving the job to decide who will blow the whistle.
There is the case of Milton Orkopoulos. Gillian Sneddan helped expose her New South Wales MP boss, Milton Orkopoulos, a convicted paedophile. She first raised the allegations with Orkopoulos and then with another MP. She was assured the matter had been dealt with but when she was contacted by police after more allegations she realised that nothing had been done at all and began helping police.
For her efforts, she was eventually made redundant. Her colleagues, however, who sat down and said nothing, who shut up and stayed silent, kept their jobs and received promotions. What a shameful situation. These are a few examples.
The government’s bill has gone a little way to ensuring that the Commissioner reports to the discloser. However, it only requires that the person making the disclosure is contacted in very limited circumstances and with very few definite time frames. The bill requires the Commissioner to report to the person making the disclosure in the following circumstances: within a reasonable time after the completion of the investigation; and if the Commissioner decides not to investigate a disclosure, that decision must be reported to the whistleblower within 14 days.
If a person stuck their neck out and reported malpractice or corruption within their organisation, they would want to know that it had been received and when they could expect to hear an answer. Reporting requirements are especially important in cases where an investigation finds there is no wrongdoing or no reason to take further action.
There is a need, highlighted in the submission by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Office to the House of Representatives inquiry into whistleblowing, for a discloser to be reassured during the whistleblowing process, that the investigation is being taken seriously and that:
- This would include keeping the whistleblower informed of how the matter is being progressed and providing them with reasons for any findings and any decisions
to take or not to take action.
- Keeping the whistleblower informed in this way will help to minimise dissatisfaction with the whistleblowing process and hopefully minimise the risk of inappropriate
disclosure of information.’
These points highlight the fact that the Treasurer is right when she says this is ‘middle of the pack’ legislation. It is nothing to get excited about ...
Ms Lawrie: I did not say that.
Mr TOLLNER: I am afraid you have not had the …
Ms Lawrie: I was talking about the government’s broad policy settings.
Mr TOLLNER: You said it is ‘middle of the pack’, which to most people means it is average, middle of the road; there is nothing special about this at all. It is obvious to anybody who takes even the most cursory glance at this legislation that this is average …
Mr Knight: Have you read it? You have not read it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The member for Daly asks whether I have read this legislation.
Mr Knight: You have not read it.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Daly, I am standing here talking about this legislation ...
Mr Knight: You said you had not read it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly.
Mr TOLLNER: No, what I said was I have not done a great deal of investigation into this legislation. I did not say I had not read it. You do not have to read much of this legislation to know it is average. The Treasurer stood up and said it is ‘middle of the pack’ legislation, meaning it is somewhere between the worst and the best legislation; it is average legislation. You could not even go that extra step to ensure - just copy it from some other jurisdiction that was seen as best practice. You could not even go that far.
Of course, the reason we know that they did not go that far is because they are not interested in whistleblowers. This is all about smoke and mirrors, is it not? This is throwing bread to the masses …
Ms Purick: Let them eat cake.
Mr TOLLNER: Let them eat cake – there is nothing nutritious in it. It tastes all right, but there is no substance to it. We all know there is no substance to it; the Treasurer has identified that. She has quite publicly and openly said there is nothing in it ...
Ms Lawrie: No, you were not there.
Mr TOLLNER: Pick up the newspaper today and read what you said. Your quote is there: ‘middle of the pack’. That does not mean best practice. That does not mean that the government is interested in protecting whistleblowers, because you are not ...
Ms Lawrie: Yes we are. The legislation clearly does it.
Mr TOLLNER: I have just gone through it. Where is the protection for somebody going to the media? Why are contractors not involved? Why are there no time frames for the commissioner to report back to the whistleblower? Why can disclosures not be made about former public servants? Why is all this information exempt from the freedom of information act? Why does the public not have a right to see what is going on? As the member for Port Darwin said, this is about Caesar trying Caesar - complaining to Caesar about the problems that Caesar has made. We all know this is not about the public good, openness and transparency; this is about hiding things away, while at the same time putting up some smoke screen to say, look what we have done, we are wonderful? It has only taken us seven years’ ...
Ms Purick: Nearly 20.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, nearly 20. Actually, the member for Araluen did a great little walk down memory lane. Terry Smith, was it? Goodness me, we have gone through them all - Terry Smith, Maggie Hickey …
Ms Purick: Brian Ede.
Mr TOLLNER: Brian Ede, Clare Martin. She only had six years to do the job and she failed. At least Hendo - what has he been around? – 12 months this term …
Mr Wood: One hundred days.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, I remind you that members in this Chamber need to be referred to either by their electorate or their title. In the case of the Chief Minister, that is how you should refer to him.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Speaker, I do apologise. The current Chief Minister - 100 days in the job. He is acting decisively, and he has put up some middle of the pack legislation, which we are now debating. We know it is middle of the pack, the Treasurer said it was ‘middle of the pack’.
Ms Carney: Fool that she is.
Mr TOLLNER: We would not say that in here, that would be unparliamentary. She is being very honest, which is good to see; it is a welcome change.
I cannot see much point debating this nonsense, because that is what it is - nonsense. This is about smoke and mirrors, throwing the masses a bit of cake - something tasty but not exactly nutritious; it is average stuff.
A member: Tofu legislation.
Mr TOLLNER: Tofu? I think tofu these days is made of soy beans that, I believe, are genetically modified, so it has actually been improved; I do not think there is any improvement in this legislation at all. As the Treasurer says, it is ‘middle of the pack’, average, mediocre, totally flawed.
This government has been around for seven years, it has been talking about whistleblower legislation and this is what they have come up with. Good on them, I suppose it is a start. It is lacking in a whole range of different areas, I suppose we will see what comes of it.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I have some comments on this legislation. I will start with someone who is a little more experienced than I am; the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Prof John McMillan, who has been around for a while, and who said on 26 September 2008 that ‘whistleblower laws should provide an opportunity for public servants to go to the media in exceptional circumstances’.
Straight off the bat. This person, who certainly has some credibility around Australia, one would hope, because he is the Commonwealth Ombudsman, not a Coroner or the Alice Springs Ombudsman …
Mr Tollner: The Commonwealth Ombudsman is not middle of the pack.
Mr BOHLIN: Maybe he is not the middle of the pack. I quote again:
- A person [should] have an opportunity to go directly to the media if reasonably they have used the measures available and on good faith grounds they feel it hasn’t been
dealt with properly.
With the Bundaberg Hospital case; that nurse, who is a fine, upstanding, Australian citizen, put everything - her entire family - at risk. Do you think she did not go to bed at night wondering, now that she had started the process, and the process was failing her, that someone may want to come and fire bomb her house? You are talking about someone with a lot more money than the nurse; it would not be untoward of him to perhaps drop in a little of money to someone, and say, let us go and wrap this one up, let us really put some fear into her so that she does not come after my livelihood anymore. Thank God, from what we know, it did not happen.
We do not always make laws about what happens, but also to ensure that it does not happen. We have laws about murder, because we do not want them to happen. We do not intend for them to happen, but they do happen. There is a need to ensure that these laws are the best possible in practice. I am speaking from this side of the floor, and from what I believe the community would expect: the best possible practice from the governing authority in the Northern Territory, which happens to be that side of the floor.
Did it fall short? Obviously to some degree it has. It would be best practice for it to pick up the ball and run with some amendments, because if you can see the need to change, you should make those changes. If you want to be credible and be seen as a good government, you will need to make changes. Accept that you are not going to get it right all the time. You need to be able to protect the people who have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against the bullies of our society, who wish to run their own campaign and do their own wrongdoings. In this case it was a doctor, who was well and truly in ‘la la’ world in his ability to treat people, and he was causing great harm. Would you not want to make sure that we protect that, so that we do not have that happen here? That to me is fundamental, and it needs to be fixed.
Giving no time for feedback is another concern. We have the fine FOI legislation that was introduced by your team, which is there so that we can see some honesty and integrity - to see through the smoke and mirrors, and which actually has time constraints and time controls. There are mandatory reporting bills, and if you do not comply with those mandatory reporting bills, there is an opportunity to take redress on those. Why not cut and paste that little part from FOI legislation, which you drew up, slot it into the whistleblowers? It is a simple cut and paste. I am sure there is someone with the computer skills to do that. It is common sense that we put in time frames - we must do it.
It is foolish to think you can leave it open-ended. Particularly when you have someone with the intestinal fortitude to step up, make a claim, and on reasonable grounds believe it is true, then once they have said their piece, they are out there hanging on the clothesline – on the Hills Hoist – they are out there to dry, for the wolves to tear apart, if not protected properly.
Do you think they go to bed at night thinking: have I done the right thing by my family? Should I just protect my own family, instead of the interests of all these other people? That is why we need a time restraint, so people can be advised at regular intervals of what is going on. So they know where it is at. So they do not have to keep looking over their shoulder, asking, what shadow is that chasing me, was that the person who I have just reported on? I do not know what is going on, because no one has told me, and months have gone by and no one has told me anything. I am strong enough to report an incident that is serious, be it corruption or something, and now I have to live in fear, because no one is telling me anything.
The police department does their best to keep victims informed about what is happening with their crimes, within their incidents. Why not add a little to this legislation to ensure that the people who are strong enough to stand up know what is going on with their complaint. They need to know what is happening. You may not want everyone to know what is happening, but they are the ones that came to you with information, surely a regular update is possible. Set a time frame - be it every 60 days or whatever. I am sure we have some indications of what it should be and keep them informed. They are your important source. They are your potential evidence to some wrongdoing. So treat them like that. Treat them with the respect they deserve and in this case it is treating the Territory people with the respect they deserve.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I will not take up too much time. They have articulated the opposition’s view and I know that it will be fleshed out a lot more in the committee stage.
I want to address the areas of health, minister, and where the whistleblower legislation will be with health and, particularly, with health professionals. There is some concern that allied health professionals, such as physiotherapists, will not be covered by this legislation. I know there is also some concern from nurses. The scholarly paper says that whistleblowing represents a dilemma for nurses. It strikes at the heart of professional values and raises questions about the responsibilities nurses have to communities and clients, the profession and themselves. In its most damaging form, whistleblowing necessarily involves a breach of ethical standards, particularly confidentiality. Despite the pain that can be associated with whistleblowing, if the outcomes are improved professional standards, enhanced outcomes, rectification of wrongdoings, and increased safety to patients and staff in our health services, then the ends definitely justify the means.
I am happy to table that for you minister if you would like to have a look.
Obviously there are some concerns within the health sector with whistleblowing legislation. I draw the attention to where the whistleblower legislation stands within the allied health sector. Are they exempt from that or not?
I will outline from Douglas and Jones’s Administrative Law, where it talks about protecting whistleblowers, and I quote:
- Whistleblowing can be a useful weapon in the armoury against corruption for personal gain and also corruption for political purposes which … is less headline grabbing
but more deadly as it can lead to crimes against humanity. It can alert the public to dangers and provide the community with the information that could not necessarily
be obtained under administrative law even if one knew where to begin looking. Taking this point further, whistleblowing can be seen to contribute to the democratic
process which requires citizen participation and cannot survive in an environment of secrecy. Apart from sounding the alarm on immediate dangers, whistleblowing
can bring benefits to society through improving the efficiency and integrity of the public sector ...
There is no doubt about that and, in principle, the opposition do support whistleblowing legislation. It has taken a long time to bring it to the Territory parliament - 20 years we have heard. We proposed a bill and it has taken seven years for this government to bring it forward. It is better late then never, but we do have some concerns. I know the Leader of the Opposition will raise those in the committee stages of this bill, which I believe we will get to shortly.
I would like to hear what the minister says about protection for whistleblowers who go to the media. The member for Araluen raised the concerns of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. Obviously, governments perform very well under public scrutiny, not just internal scrutiny - public exposure and in the mass media. We all tend to lift our game when exposed, particularly governments. We have seen it time and time again with this government and, no doubt, previous governments as well. That is something that should be seriously considered. My colleagues will discuss that throughout these committee stages.
Finally, regarding clause 5(3) of the bill, substantial maladministration; it is very curious. The member for Araluen also raised this:
- … substantial maladministration means conduct that includes action or inaction of a serious nature that is any of the following:
And it goes on to list three points.
I thought that substantial maladministration would be a serious issue. I thought maladministration would be serious in itself. However, it is articulated in this section, ‘conduct that includes action or inaction of a serious nature’. I am just wondering why that is actually included in the bill when I thought that maladministration would be serious on its own; I thought it would be self-explanatory.
We support whistleblowing legislation; we always have. It is good to see it brought into the Territory parliament. We believe there are a number of amendments that need to be applied to this bill to give it the strength, to bolster it right up, to actually protect those people who have serious issues in the public sector with their superiors.
It is there to protect employees from reprisals. A whistleblower may be reporting conduct of a criminal nature but, if they were to take that report directly to the police, would they be protected from discrimination? That is a very good question and I am interested to hear the minister’s response to that. Perhaps the minister and his advisors can answer that question.
Madam Speaker, I do not want to take up much time. We have a couple of other speakers before the minister’s reply, and we have a long committee stage ahead. We do support whistleblowers’ legislation; let us make that very clear. However, we believe that it needs a series of amendments to bolster it up to be effective legislation. In principle, we support it, and I am looking forward to the committee stage.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of concerns that I ask the government to address.
During Question Time today, I heard the Chief Minister talk about open, honest, transparent, and accountable government. I hope that he is genuine when he addresses this House and uses those words, and that he would want to, along with his colleagues, cover and look after people in the Northern Territory and give them the ability to raise matters of serious concern regarding public spending and matters of public importance.
There have been a number of occasions, in governments in all states in Australia, and many places in the world, where there have been servants of the government who have either, by deceit or by omission, misled ministers, CEOs, and many other people. These people, who have their own agendas, often conspire with others to ensure that this information does not get out. It has even happened in this House where particular ministers have made claims that they were not informed of various issues and things that were going on in their departments.
However, if you were in one of those departments, and on a daily basis you were working with colleagues, seeing and doing things, and then you came across issues that were not so wonderful - that were not so great, what would you do?
Without someone like an independent commissioner, perhaps the Ombudsman or someone who is actually an officer of the parliament, as opposed to a public servant, one might ask, where do I go? I am sure many of us have been to barbecues and functions, where you talk to various people who are aware of these sort of issues that arise and they do not know where to go through fear of losing their jobs or reprisals, be it psychological, physical or financial; they do not have the ability to go to someone with their concerns and get these things addressed.
I have been in situations, for instance, in police cases, where these things drag on. People who are witnesses in these issues and who have the information at their disposal, unfortunately, get cold feet. As time goes by, these people either do not want to give an account of what they saw, or through various things that have occurred to them, people they have been exposed to or information that has been passed onto them - along the fear brigade, who want to propagate this atmosphere that you cannot go and tell anyone otherwise terrible things are going to happen to you - these people pull out from time to time or they just forget some of the very pertinent aspects of what they saw.
It is well known in our community, for instance, in police prosecutions, that if you want a case to go cold, simply find the right person and get it delayed. In the end, people lose interest, they lose their drive and they start to fear what will happen to them. More people have the ability to get hold of them and put this fear into their mind. People get cold feet and either withdraw their information and their services, or they simply leave the Territory.
I am sure there are those opposite that have gone to barbecues and have this sort of information about what is happening. I will give an example. Recently, with the power failures at the Casuarina substation, I was out the front of my office and a person came along who was, until recently, employed by Power and Water as a maintenance officer. He came and spoke to me and he said: ‘I have been trying to tell people about this for quite some time, in fact, for quite some years of the sort of maintenance that needed to be done but, unfortunately, nobody listened’. He asked me: who do you go and tell? The guy is not a public servant now; he is no longer employed by PAWC, so he is not covered by this legislation.
This goes on in the health and police portfolios, and I am sure there are people on the other side of this House who get this sort of information from time to time. However, what do we do about protecting these people? How do we as a community, and how does government give these people the confidence to go to someone and have their matters, concerns and complaints heard in a timely manner, be informed about what is happening in a timely manner, so that they are part of the process and not feel left out?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I suggest that the government might like to look at that and consider some of the issues that we have raised so that these people do have the confidence, and that is all people in our community, no matter who they work for or where they are from, so they can come forward, and people can have an open, honest, transparent and accountable look at what is going on. I repeat that the Chief Minister said that this is the way his government is and I ask him to be true to his word.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions. The member for Nelson, talked about the three main aims of the bill: to protect people making disclosures, for example from reprisals, and many members spoke about that; to provide a mechanism for people to make disclosures; and provide for those disclosures to be investigated in relation to proper conduct of public servants and/or public bodies.
It is important to say that the definition of ‘public bodies’ is quite wide and it is not just about Northern Territory government, it includes Power and Water and a whole range of bodies that are associated with government, as well as local councils. A public body includes public service agencies, local government councils, the police force, a university, a public hospital, government owned corporations, bodies established under legislation for a public purpose, and other prescribed bodies supported by government funds, all controlled by the Northern Territory. There is wide coverage.
To clarify a very important element; any member of the public can make a disclosure to the commissioner. That is the first thing. You do not need to be a public servant to make a disclosure. You could be an employee of a private contracting firm, and if you have evidence about collusion, corruption, substantial maladministration, you can make a disclosure under this legislation to the commissioner. Similarly, if you have been an employee of an agency or an entity like Power and Water, as the member for Sanderson alluded to before, there is nothing to stop you making a disclosure about certain things, even though you are longer an employee. That is important to put on the record.
Improper conduct, has been defined by a number of members, is defined as conduct in the performance of official duties, that would, if proved, either constitute a criminal offence or reasonable grounds for dismissal, including bribes, improper inducements, other forms of dishonesty, inappropriate bias, breach of public trust, misuse of confidential information; or involves a substantial misuse or mismanagement of public resources, a substantial risk to public health or safety, a substantial risk to the environment, or substantial maladministration, which specifically substantially and adversely affects someone’s interest.
The government had a purpose when it chose ‘substantial maladministration’. We did not want trivial issues being brought forward in terms of maladministration. As a member pointed out, there is a spectrum of maladministration. It could be that someone goes on morning tea every day when they are supposed to be at their desk taking telephone calls. That could be maladministration, but what we are after is significant maladministration. If that were to lead to a calamitous set of events, of course that would be significant maladministration. Government decided to draw a line and say it will be significant maladministration.
Much has been made today and verballing the Treasurer on what she had to say about where this legislation sits in the spectrum of whistleblower legislation across Australia. I believe that the Treasurer was alluding to this being solid legislation. There is a whole spectrum of legislation around Australia and there are outliers, in what other jurisdiction’s legislation contains, and reporting to the media after the process is one of them. New South Wales is the only one jurisdiction in Australia which has that. There are a multitude of models that we are looking at, and the Treasurer was saying that this is solid legislation that takes the best elements, the most workable elements of legislation into the Northern Territory.
If the gentlemen in suits opposite would give me a – am I just missing something, that they are all in suits today, or is it just suit day so they can wear a white ribbon, or has this been an instruction from the chief commandant or the second-in-command that all the dukes have to wear suits today? Anyway, I will leave that up to others to decide.
Ms Carney: Is that a jacket you are wearing?
Dr BURNS: The Blues Brothers opposite - that is what I will call them. I will quote Ken Parish, who said today …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Although Ken Parish has been a former member of the Labor Party and a former member of the Legislative Assembly on the Labor side, he is often very critical of the Labor Party and this Labor government in particular. He said on 105.7FM today:
- … that the model the Northern Territory government is bringing in has as good a range of protections, if not better, than any other state in Australia …
He also said:
- … they are still not good enough …
But there are always perfectionists in terms of this sort of legislation. He continued:
- You know why they are among the best, is you do have this commissioner who has powers, analogous to those of the Ombudsman, a Commissioner of Public
Interest Disclosures and there are quite strong sanctions against acts of reprisal by departments or agencies against people who make protected disclosures.
It is very important to note that we have a commissioner –the whistleblower commissioner – who does have powers, is able to investigate these matters, and will be resourced to do so and bring them to conclusion. That commissioner is an independent statutory office holder which is very important to note.
There are many members who have spoken so I hope I can get through in the 25 minutes that I have. I would like to try to respond to everything that people have said, although in some cases it was very repetitive, particularly in relation to the member for Fong Lim, it was like an echo of the Opposition Leader.
The Leader of the Opposition voiced his disappointment about the time taken, and he said about the Treasurer, and being mediocre, etcetera. I believe I have addressed that issue. He lauded the Commonwealth and the Whistling While They Work study that was done under ARC funding. I believe that many members have forgotten or might not be aware that the Commonwealth does not actually have whistleblower legislation. They do have some discrete parts within some legislation but they do not have integrated, uniform whistleblower legislation with a whistleblower commissioner that oversees all those complaints.
It is a furphy to say that the Commonwealth has got some sort of wonderful model. The Commonwealth really has no model. They are going through a process of deciding which model they are going to have. While some members talked about the Commonwealth Ombudsman advocating for people to be able to go to the media after a process, I say that Commonwealth officers are not always in agreement about that. The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department is supportive of measures to encourage whistleblowing, but they say an effective whistleblowing regime will also assist in the protection of sensitive government information by providing an avenue for people to raise concerns outside of their agency, rather than resorting to measures such as leaking information to the media. I am advised that the Commonwealth Public Service Commissioner is also opposed to protected disclosures to the media.
There is only one jurisdiction in Australia that has protected disclosures to media. I am advised that this is very rarely used, and people who wish to make disclosures to the media usually go directly to the media. Government has a problem with disclosures to the media. Even though people may have gone through a whistleblower process and disclosing, and at the end of it they are not happy. There may be many reasons why they are not happy.
Under the New South Wales legislation they are then allowed to go to the media. As I am advised, those people have indemnity from civil and criminal prosecution. You could have the scenario where someone has made a disclosure about someone in an agency - it could even involve an outside entity such as a company that is contracting with government - if they are not satisfied with the outcome of that disclosure, they can go to the media and make that disclosure, and they are protected. Yet, the person, or set of people, they have made the disclosure about within a particular department, do not have protection or an avenue, civilly, to take that person to court on defamation.
Similarly, a private company, that may have been the subject of that disclosure, can be defamed in the media and they do not have recourse. That is the advice that I have had. That is why government is not going along this particular route, because we believe in natural justice.
Moreover, the opposition has talked about having contractors within the sphere of whistleblowers’ legislation. I ask the opposition: you foreshadowed these amendments late last week, but you dumped them on my desk late yesterday, saying you wanted to put contractors into this legislation - have you consulted with the TCA or the HIA? Have you consulted with any contractor who contracts to government what you are going to do? If government was going to do that, we would be consulting.
This is an opposition that is so arrogant and so after a headline that they think: this sounds good. Let us go with contractors. Yes, let us put that in. We will dump it on old Burnsy’s desk the day before, and he will be saying: What the hell am I going to do with that? I already know what I am doing with that; we are not going along with it, because you have not consulted. I would like to be a fly on the wall the next time you meet the TCA, the HIA and other contractors who contract to government because I will be telling them: ‘Did you know that the opposition wanted to pull you in to this?’
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: ‘Were you consulted by the opposition before they did that?’ No, I do not think so, Madam Speaker. This is a government that is consultative.
On the issue of contractors, government believes that the essence of the contract, or the relationship with contractors, is in the contract itself and the oversight of that contract. Nonetheless, if there is someone within a private company …
Mr Tollner: You are crook!
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Calling the member a crook ...
Mr Conlan: He did not call him a crook, just crook.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Continue please, minister.
Mr Tollner: He is dodgy.
Mr Conlan: Suspicious.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, within the context of this legislation, if there is someone within a private contracting firm who believes that, there are individuals or processes within government allowing maladministration, corruption - whatever you name it - there is capacity to make a disclosure to the commissioner and they are protected under this legislation. This government believes that is adequate.
There was much said about Toni Hoffman and what a brave woman. Everyone in this House thinks that woman suffered, she made disclosures; it was very brave of her. She fought against the odds. No one on either side is disputing that. Once again, there has been a misunderstanding, whether deliberate or because people have not read the legislation or looked at the Queensland legislation closely enough. My advice is that within the Queensland system there is not a whistleblower commissioner per se; in the case of the health department, complaints are dealt with internally by the department. Obviously, there was a …
Mr Tollner: She was abused by Queensland Labor. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
Dr BURNS: I am talking about the process here, member for Fong Lim. Please afford me the courtesy to have my say. I sat, generally - 95% of the time – quietly and listened to what people had to say. Give me my 95% as well.
The important point I am making is that, under our legislation, there is going to be a whistleblower commissioner - a statutory officer - different to Queensland, where there is an internal departmental process which obviously failed Ms Hoffman; failed her and failed the system. That is important to note. To make a comparison is a bit wayward.
Regarding the issue about the customs officer, I have all ready alluded to the fact that there is no whistleblower commissioner within the Commonwealth system - once again, a major difference.
The issue of Milton Orkopoulos, the Chief Minister dealt with that; that was a very serious matter. The Chief Minister talked about the historic days and that we are introducing whistleblower legislation.
I pick up on some of the comments made by the member for Araluen, when she talked about the 20 year history. She went back through Terry Smith and Brian Ede and all the rest of them, saying, this is 20 year history for the Labor Party to introduce this legislation. I took what the member for Port Darwin said: let us not get into a blame game, you did not do this but we are doing it.
I believe it is important to remember that those Labor leaders, I am sure, would have been introducing private members legislation all the time during those 20 years, which was rejected by the CLP. I take your point. We had a little waltz through memory lane, but the memories are the memories - let us not make them all one sided. This is a government which is introducing whistleblowers legislation, it is very important legislation; the opposition is being critical of it, but I am putting the case of the reasons why - and I am prepared to do it during our committee stage amendments – we will not be going along with the majority of the amendments that have been proposed by the opposition.
The member for Araluen raised the issue of substantial maladministration; I believe I have spoken about that. The member for Araluen also raised the issue, and quoted Chris Warren from the allied performing arts group union, that it is important that matters are not dealt with behind closed doors and talked about protected disclosures to media, he said, you cannot protect the public interest in private. Many of these disclosures will be dealing with sensitive and confidential information by government. I believe it was the member for Port Darwin who hit the nail on the head when he said that the disclosure of any of this information would ordinarily constitute an offence. These disclosures are very serious, and government, like any other entity, whether it is a private company or other entity, needs to protect confidential information in the way it does business and in the way it forms various directions for government; I believe it is natural that the government does that. One only has to look at the private sector to see how jealously it guards intellectual property, marketing strategies, the data around those strategies, and commercial dealings; government also requires that protection.
The Information Commissioner will have the investigative capacity and powers under the act, and the expertise to carry this out. The media does carry out investigations, or is able to carry out investigations, but if you read the legislation carefully, the whistleblower commissioner has the power to go in to not only the public sector, but also the private sector and require documents and other matters, if there is a disclosure and there is enough evidence to back it up, to move down that investigative path. This is something that journalists and the media do not have and that is why I have confidence in the legislation that is being put forward.
One of the interjections I made on the member for Araluen, I said that you were not prepared to discuss your own bill. The member for Araluen introduced a private members bill in 2006 - and good on her - but any reading of the bill that the member for Araluen put up in 2006, is vastly different to the amendments that the opposition are putting up today.
I am advised, and I can see, that it did not set up a framework for investigation or further action; our bill has done that. It had a much narrower scope on which parts of government could be investigated; it did not include police, TIO, the Tourist Commissioner or Territory Housing. Without dwelling on it, it talked about the Ombudsman, who was the nominated officer to do the whistleblower, and when they could take over an investigation, but it was not very specific about when that might occur.
We have the CLP come in, after a private members bill, it has gone right away from what the member for Araluen proposed originally, it has latched on to the government bill and put its amendments, which is fair enough - that is what happens in parliament. However, it is just a little strange that they have moved away from the member for Araluen’s bill. I sense that the member for Araluen is a little on the outer these days and there are other agendas running and basically, her work, and very hard work in the past, is not being recognised by the men in suits over there, the ‘blues brothers’.
The member for Nelson flagged that he wants to discuss some of the issues in the committee stages and he talked about judging the results against the objects of the act. He said that he some concerns. He talked about complaints against MLAs, which, in the legislation put forward by government, will be handled by the Speaker. Madam Speaker, I am very comfortable with the Speaker handling, with the discretion and wisdom of the Speaker, such complaints against MLAs. I believe it is important, because as MLAs we do have a privileged position; we are elected and although we are nominated as public officers, we have a very unique role within the system.
The member for Nelson talked about promptness and time frames. When we come to the committee stage, I will be acknowledging some of the concerns of the member for Nelson and members opposite and I am flagging and I am advised that through regulations we can address some of those issues.
Picking up on statements made by the member for Drysdale who talked about police feeding back information to witnesses and others involved in cases. As far as I am aware, there is no statutory requirement for police to report within a certain time frame. Each investigation will be different from another, depending on its complexity and nature, but I believe it is reasonable to expect that there will be regular feedback, without saying you will do this within 30 days, that within 14 days, or that within 7 days. I believe it is reasonable to say that there should be a continual flow of information back to the complainant. There should be explanations at the end of the process as well. I believe that is a reasonable suggestion, but I am advised, member for Nelson, that we can accomplish that through the regulations.
I have already spoken about some of the issues the member for Port Darwin raised, such as, that it would otherwise be committing a criminal act, I believe were his exact words, he talked about protection from liability. He did acknowledge that governments must do business in a confidential fashion and I thought that was paradoxical and contradictory, in that he was saying, why have we quarantined the whistleblowers process from FOI? I am pretty sure that is the question you asked. That is part of the amendments that are being praised by the opposition. I contend that this information is sensitive and confidential, and it is paradoxical to say it is those things on one side, but then you can have an FOI process and get it out in the public arena through another. That is paradoxical.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order; Madam Speaker! I just direct the minister to my speech when it is reported in Hansard and you will find I did not actually make that observation.
Dr BURNS: If that is the case, Madam Speaker, I do apologise to the member.
It is part of the opposition’s amendments to have the investigative process of the whistleblower commissioner opened up to the FOI process. I am outlining why government will not be accepting that amendment. It is exactly as I have stated.
The member for Port Darwin talked about Caesar to Caesar and basically Caesar judging Caesar and he believes that is not the way to go. I am saying that the independent statutory officer who will be the whistleblower commissioner is exactly that. It is not the same as the Queensland system where the complaint, if we are talking about the Bundaberg issue, was dealt with within the department - that is certainly Caesar to Caesar. It is not something that government will be doing. We have an independent officer.
Mr Elferink: That is not what the legislation says.
Dr BURNS: I was a little amazed - and once again I do not want to be verballing the member for Port Darwin - but he talked about a situation where a person cannot have confidence in the police. I have every confidence in the police; government has confidence in the police. As the member for Port Darwin says we do not have an ICAC like some larger jurisdictions, but we have the police Ethical and Professional Standards Command. I have every confidence that those officers, with integrity, wide ranging investigative powers, and skills in sensitive investigations, would get to the bottom of any police corruption, maladministration or criminal behaviour within police, in terms of the whistleblower legislation.
Mr Elferink: I was talking about the investigation into the leak which led to the Chief Minister ringing up the commissioner.
Dr BURNS: I beg your pardon?
Mr Elferink: Are you going to tell us about the investigation that was done into the leak?
Dr BURNS: As the Chief Minister said, you were briefed by the commissioner yourself. I was not at that briefing.
Mr Elferink: That has nothing to do with it. There was a criminal act committed and there was no investigation.
Dr BURNS: It was a matter exhaustively questioned in the last Assembly. You have your point of view, I have mine.
Mr Elferink: There was a criminal act committed and there was no investigation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Indirectly then, the member for Port Darwin is reflecting on the commissioner and the police force, even though he said he was not in his speech; I believe that is what he is saying if you follow through his assertions.
Mr Elferink: Well, good. Let us have an inquiry.
Dr BURNS: I will change the subject.
Mr Elferink: I am sure you will.
Dr BURNS: The opposition has maintained the position …
Mr Elferink: Bring it in, let us have inquiry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The opposition have maintained the position of wanting the Ombudsman to be the whistleblower commissioner. This was something that the government considered very carefully. The Information Commissioner was chosen, because in a small jurisdiction like the Territory, not unique, but unusual, the Ombudsman fulfils two roles, as the Leader of the Opposition and others said. The Ombudsman has that role and is also the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. We have seen, at times, when the Ombudsman and the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner have been the same person, and had to change hats. There is nothing illegal or improper about that, but it does create difficulties. That is why it was decided that the Information Commissioner would be the whistleblower commissioner, and the Information Commissioner can direct things to the Ombudsman or the police.
I believe it was the member for Greatorex who asked a question about police. He asked that if someone went directly to the police would they have protective disclosure, and the answer is no. What happens is the person makes the disclosure, either …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that the minister be allowed additional time to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, colleagues. My advice is that the person making the disclosure, usually makes it to either the whistleblower commissioner or the CEO, who is then bound to report it to the whistleblower commissioner. The whistleblower commissioner can refer it on, either to the Ombudsman, if it can be more appropriately dealt with by the Ombudsman, or the police, if it involves criminal matters. If it is a police matter, the person who has made the disclosure is protected under this legislation.
A number of members opposite also asked a question about nurses. The member for Greatorex asked a question about allied health professionals. Any member of the public can make a disclosure and be protected, but if they are a public servant and they make a disclosure, they are also protected. However, they are also protected if they are in the private sector and make a disclosure.
Nurses who are working on contract in our hospitals - who might be contracted to a nursing agency that provides nurses to the hospital – who observe any wrongdoing while working within the hospital, that is encapsulated in this bill, can make a disclosure and are also covered by the legislation. That is the advice I have on that particular matter.
The member for Fong Lim raised and rehashed – it was almost like a re-run of the Opposition Leader’s speech …
A member: Just in case you did not hear it the first time.
Dr BURNS: Just in case I did not hear it. I did hear it, and I was particularly interested in the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, obviously, a favourite group of the member for Fong Lim.
The member for Drysdale talked about the case in Queensland, which is your right. I just wonder whether you might have strayed somewhere into sub judice in some of the things you said, member for Drysdale. I suppose everyone will be looking at the Parliamentary Record in relation to that, because I believe the case involving Dr Patel is still in front of the courts. The member for Drysdale talked at length about Toni Hoffman and her trials and tribulations. I have followed that up. He talked about police feedback. I have also addressed that issue.
Member for Greatorex, I have addressed the issue you raised regarding allied health professions being covered if they report directly to police. You mentioned the dilemma of nurses; that, basically, they might look upon whistleblowers as being a breach of confidentially. That is the tension that exists. On one side, there is Toni Hoffman and her disclosure as a nurse in Queensland, and on the other side there are nurses with professional concerns. It is a difficult issue but in such serious instances such as what happened in Bundaberg Hospital, it is really incumbent and the duty of people to report, although it was very difficult for Toni Hoffman to do so.
The member for Sanderson reiterated what the Chief Minister said about open, honest and transparent government. He talked about conspiring to hide information, the Ombudsman and the ability to go to a statutory officer. The whistleblower commissioner will be a statutory officer. He said people do not know where to go currently. There will be an education campaign regarding this legislation, the commissioner, and how people can report to the commissioner. That is very important. However, the instance that he raised of someone who was previously an employee of Power and Water, if they felt they had information - a disclosure - they are covered under this legislation. I am disappointed that the member for Sanderson had not read the legislation or listened to the second reading speech carefully enough to realise that.
In summary, I welcome the contributions by all members. We will be moving into committee stage. I am prepared to go into detail about the amendments moved by the opposition, but I believe I have already foreshadowed, in a number of cases, the position of the government in relation to this. I can only reiterate that it makes things very difficult to bring these amendments forward, the written part of them, and give them to government the day before we are debating. These are complex issues. I have given the amendments attention, but I say that government will not be supporting them, and I am prepared to reason why, when we get to the committee stage amendments.
I thank members for their contribution, and I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Ms CARNEY: No, we do not support it being taken as a whole.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, please pause while I seek advice.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, that is right. We are going to take the bill as a whole.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Madam CHAIR: Is leave granted for the Leader of the Opposition to move the following amendments together - 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5 in relation to clauses 6, 7 and 8? There being no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr WOOD: Can I get a clarification, Madam Chair? If members would like to discuss an earlier clause before this is passed, can we do that now before that motion?
Ms CARNEY: Yes, because you want to and so do I.
Mr MILLS: These are matters that precede the issues I will be attending to, so I would be quite happy for that to occur.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I believe that is …
Mr WOOD: I believe the member for Araluen has a clause before mine.
Ms CARNEY: And you do too.
Mr WOOD: I ask the member for Araluen if she wants to go first.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, member for Nelson, and thank you, Madam Chair. Before getting to the substantial amendments, and as a result of the minister’s answer in his reply, I would like to revisit clause 5, in particular the definition of ‘substantial maladministration’. A definition is provided, as follows:
- … substantial maladministration means conduct that includes action or inaction of a serious nature that is any of the following:
(a) contrary to law;
(b) unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, or improperly discriminatory; and
(c) based wholly or partly on improper motives.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, once again we have the lawyer, the member for Araluen, trying to verbal me in what I said. In response to the member for Araluen saying that she did not want to see a sliding scale for maladministration and that she did not agree with the government defining maladministration and substantial maladministration, I gave an example of what I believe would be a minor peccadillo of someone not being at their phone to take a call when they were expected to be there. Now the seriousness of that increases if someone …
Mr Tollner: Can I just ask what a peccadillo is?
Madam CHAIR: Is this a point or order?
Mr Tollner: No, I am just seeking clarification on what a peccadillo is.
Dr BURNS: There is a dictionary there, member for Fong Lim. It comes after ‘O’. There you go.
A member: Do you not know what it is?
Dr BURNS: I know what it is.
Mr Tollner: Go on what is it?
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the minister is trying to address the question, please.
Dr BURNS: I sat down after that, if they want to be serious, I will be serious.
Mr Tollner: You are the one that mentioned it.
Ms CARNEY: Given that you did not, I believe, fully answer that question, can you give other examples of maladministration that might be of concern to Territorians and their government?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I am advised that there is actually a body of law regarding what constitutes substantial maladministration, so I am not going to stand here outlining cases. I am advised and was advised in my briefings in relation to this bill, that there is a body of case law in relation to substantial maladministration - that would be a matter left to legal minds.
Ms CARNEY: I assume from your answer, minister, that the short version is ‘no’. I raise this because the wording of the section refers to ‘substantial maladministration of a serious nature’. The government spin has been that this will protect Territorians for blowing the whistle on what is commonly understood, particularly by public service employees, as maladministration, misconduct and so on. I am concerned, minister, that the government is apparently not concerned with maladministration that is not serious or substantial. We take the view on this side, and I believe our fellow Territorians would also, that misconduct is misconduct and maladministration is maladministration.
In terms of the commonly understood definition and I can go further than that one, from the Concise Oxford Dictionary: ‘to administer inefficiently or badly; faulty administration; inefficient or improper management of affairs, especially public affairs’; hence our point. You have said to the community: we will protect you, if things go wrong, if you see things that are seriously bad, let us know. ‘Seriously bad’, in a commonly understood parlance, might be misconduct that does not fulfil your definition. We inquire whether you are concerned about that?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I have been given a few examples in relation to what constitutes substantial maladministration and has been found in other jurisdictions to constitute that. One is substantial poor personnel practices based on alleged discrimination or procedural flaws. Another is an equine influenza outbreak being the result of administrative failure. These are issues that have been put to me as examples of substantial maladministration.
Ms CARNEY: With respect, you are deliberately not hearing me. That would have been a good answer to a different question. My question was about maladministration that is not substantial or not serious. You would be aware surely, minister, that the term maladministration has a fairly wide definition. It could include things like delay, incorrect action or failure to take action, failure to follow procedures or some would say the law, failure to provide information, inadequate record keeping, failure to investigate, failure to reply, misleading or inaccurate statements, inadequate consultation, broken promises – I suspect broken promises mean a lot to you. They are just some of the things that could fall, and do fall under the definition or the commonly understood term of maladministration. You and your government seem to not worry about the things I have mentioned, but only to worry about things that are higher than that, as evidenced by your use of the word substantial and serious in the definition section.
I ask you one more time, and I will not pursue it after that, are you concerned about that and, if not, why not?
Dr BURNS: The definition of substantial maladministration is based on the New South Wales/Queensland definition.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Chair! He is many things but he is not entirely stupid. I did not ask you, minister, to provide me with the definition of substantial maladministration. The question is about maladministration. Can you answer that and could you find it, could you dig deep within yourself and see if you can answer the question I asked?
Madam CHAIR: There is no point of order. The minister is trying to answer your question. Minister, you have the floor.
Dr BURNS: You gave up a whole range of your definitions which included inadequate record keeping but where do you draw the line in terms of inadequate record keeping. Did someone record the wrong date by mistake record in a database or have a decimal in the wrong spot purely by error? Where are you going to draw the line? We have drawn the line at the definition of substantial.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, I believe that was the question that the member for Araluen was asking. Where do you draw the line? That is a question you have not answered. Where do you draw the line?
Dr BURNS: I answered it, member for Fong Lim. If you listen again, it specifically substantially and adversely affects someone’s interests; that is the definition. I cannot enlarge on it beyond that.
Ms CARNEY: One final question, Madam Chair. Minister, I believe the Ombudsman in the UK has fairly diverse powers. One of them, if memory serves me correctly, is that the Ombudsman has a wide brief and can investigate maladministration. There is not, to my memory, the definition served in the relevant legislation of substantial maladministration. Maladministration, as per the Oxford Concise, and I am quoting, is: ‘faulty administration, inefficient or improper management of affairs’.
Minister, on the basis of that definition and the fact that maladministration does have a fairly wide definition, it seems from your answers that your government is apparently unconcerned and unwilling to protect whistleblowers who report faulty administration, inefficient or improper management of affairs. You should be ashamed of yourself. I do not expect you to answer the question. Why start now? It is disgraceful if you come into this Chamber and say that you accept that maladministration of a certain type is fine. If that is the government you want to be a member of - go your hardest. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Dr BURNS: The sorts of issues that the member for Araluen is alluding to are best dealt with through systems within the public service. There may be instances where matters are referred back to a CEO regarding inefficiencies that are not substantial maladministration. These are disciplinary matters that would be best dealt with in an operational sense within agencies. This bill is about having a system for disclosure about behaviour which is substantial, which is at the same level as criminal, dismissible, or at that level - not the petty little look over the shoulder to see whether you have put the decimal point in the right place ...
Ms CARNEY: We are not talking decimal points; we are talking faulty administration. You think that is okay. You are an idiot.
Dr BURNS: I did not say that.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, I believe you have a question, before we go back to the Leader for Opposition’s amendments.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question relates to clause 6(1) which states the definition of a public body is:
- (g) a body (whether incorporated or not) prescribed by regulation:
(i) that is supported directly or indirectly by government funds or other assistance; or
(ii) over which the Territory is in a position to exercise control;
Minister, do we have the regulations that would describe all the bodies which come under this act?
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Nelson for his question. My advice is that this will be defined within the regulations.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I could say fair enough, but I would like to know who is in and who is out. Take clause 6(1)(g)(i) which says: ‘that is supported directly or indirectly by government funds or other assistance’. Sometimes the government gives Freds Pass Reserve money to help build a grandstand. Would that be a body which would now come under this legislation?
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, the intention of government would not be to include a body like Freds Pass Reserve. Possibly, you know more about their funding than I do, and what level of assistance they receive from government. I am under the impression they also receive some funding from Litchfield Shire Council. Is that right? I suppose they do raise funds or have revenue through other sources. It is a complex matter in terms of the funding, and it seems like it is a composite funding model.
Mr WOOD: Freds Pass comes under the Litchfield Shire, so you could say that it comes under the requirements of this bill in relation to local government. Consider a different body, for instance, the local Landcare group. It gets some money from the Territory government, and it also probably gets money from the Commonwealth government. Would the members of that Landcare group be subject to this particular legislation?
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, it is a good question. My advice is that, under this legislation, it would be considered a private body and it must acquit the funds to the funding agency.
Mr WOOD: That just confused me. Clause 6(1)(g) says: ‘a body (whether incorporated or not) prescribed by regulation’: It does not say whether it is private or otherwise; it just says that it is supported directly or indirectly by government funds or other assistance. I will give another example, you announced in the budget you were funding the Environment Centre, would they be included in this legislation?
Dr BURNS: At this stage, no bodies have been prescribed, but it would be dependent on the individual body. It is almost like a case-by-case basis, member for Nelson, but certainly that is something we will have to consider.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, what concerns me is who is going to make the decision about who is in and who is out? I thought that the Environment Centre fitted perfectly into here. They are getting $140 000 of taxpayers’ money; they fit into this classification. If the government is not going to have a list of all those bodies, and it must know all the bodies it gives money to. If it is not going to define that now, then it possibly leaves itself open to accusations of favouritism. For instance, if you put one body in and leave another body out and both receive funding from the government, someone is going to say, that is maladministration. I know they are not going to say that, but they might say, this is unfair. Before this legislation is assented to, will the government put forward a list of all those bodies that come under this legislation? Otherwise, I believe it is legislation that has no end.
Dr BURNS: To some extent, clause 6(g) is on a case-by-case basis. I understand that Victoria has the capacity for prescribed bodies in their legislation, and this legislation has been modelled on Victoria, but has not prescribed any bodies; it is a case-by-case basis. When I worked with the Heart Foundation, we received some government funding, but as a percentage of our total funding that we received from other sources, it was a small percentage. There is a spectrum of different bodies, different non-government agencies, that have a spectrum of funding and funding sources.
You have mentioned Freds Pass and the Environment Centre, and I have mentioned a non-government health organisation, like the Heart Foundation. This is something where we are going to have to look at other jurisdictions and see what happens. Member for Nelson, there have been no bodies prescribed and that has to be something that is considered as part of the regulations.
Mr WOOD: I do not want to drag this on too much, but it appears to me that this is a clause that is just sitting there. I ask another question regarding independent schools, which would receive a lot of money, both from the Commonwealth and the Territory. I presume that, under this legislation, teachers and others who work for government schools are included. Independent schools would certainly be supported directly or indirectly by government funds, and the Territory would have some ability to exercise control over those schools, through perhaps curriculum and standards. Would the teachers and staff of an independent school be able to use this legislation if they felt there was maladministration?
Dr BURNS: It is a deep question, member for Nelson. Some of the bodies we have discussed are the subject of grants for specific purposes. I believe it is a case-by-case basis on what those bodies are funded for. It is an issue we will have to work through, and we will look at other jurisdictions for guidance in this particular matter. I do not believe it is a matter of reinventing the wheel; a little wisdom and judgment is required.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I ask you to comment in relation to this section, and I refer to a letter from Lucio Matarazzo on this legislation. In a letter to the Director of the Policy Unit, Department of Justice, on 26 August 2004, he said:
- The Australian Services Union submits that the scope of the legislation should also include all non government organisations who are incorporated under the Northern Territory
Associations Incorporation Act and receive funding and or part funding from the Northern Territory Government. The Australian Services Union submits that this would protect
employees in this sector who wish to blow the whistle on issues in this sector.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I know Lucio has been writing many e-mails over the last six to nine months, which I am sure members have received. I believe his proposal is casting the net too wide. The focus of this legislation is on government and bodies associated with government and it comes down to where you are actually going to draw the line and say, these ones are in and that one is out. I believe the legislation is pretty clear about who is included in most instances. As you have pointed out, member for Nelson, there is scope to prescribe other bodies on a case-by-case basis, some wisdom will have to be applied and we will need to see what happens in other jurisdictions.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, to clarify, if we are dealing with substantial maladministration in relation to funds, the government might give X non-government organisation $1m to carry out its functions for the year. A person within the public service might see a large amount of money being used inappropriately within the public service - it might have been given to a contractor that did not deserve it for whatever reason - and there was substantial maladministration of that $1m within the public service. Here the taxpayers’ same $1m is being given to an NGO. Do you not think that it is still taxpayers’ money and we do not want it misused? Yet, the person in the NGO cannot whistleblow because they do not have that protection. The only hope they have is to go to the police, if they have enough evidence, whereas the person in the public service, who is dealing with $1m, has some protection. Do you not feel that it is a little unfair at the present time?
Dr BURNS: At one level it comes down to the way in which the granting body for the funds actually has their agreement with the non-government organisation and if there are systemic failures within that granting body, that is a government granting body, and it might not be corruption, it might be substantial maladministration, there is the mechanism within the act to address that issue. There are other mechanisms in the way government grants monies to these organisations. I can think of a number of instances where state, territory and federal governments have suspended or withdrawn funding from organisations, and what has happened with OARS NT is a case in point.
Madam CHAIR: Is leave granted for the Leader of the Opposition to move the following amendments together: 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5 to clauses 6, 7 and 8? There being no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, my apologies for the start. I assumed that those other matters had already been lodged to be cleared before I moved forward.
Madam Chair, I move opposition amendments 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5 standing in my name.
Amendment 5.1 provides for a person, organisation or corporation, contracted by government, to be treated as a public body for the purposes of this act. It touches on some of the issues raised by the member for Nelson. The object of the exercise is recognising that it is the administration of public funds. That is the issue to be responded to and protected if those funds are misused. I predict the arguments will come – they have already been foreshadowed - that contractors may be offended at the suggestion of the Attorney-General by such a proposition. I am quite sure, however, that all involved in the administration of services contracted by government are interested in ensuring things are done well. It is for the extreme cases, where there is maladministration, that there is the capacity in this bill for contractors that are currently not included.
We recognise that there was nearly $19m in tenders awarded by the NT government in the month of October. For the month of September there was more than $22m in tenders awarded. As it stands, this bill does not provide any protection for those workers who witness misuse of public funds or equipment by companies and organisations that are contracted to provide goods and services to the government.
Attorney-General, consider the object of the exercise which is to provide additional protection for the administration of public funds.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain for foreshadowing his amendments and speaking about them. I have grave concerns that this amendment was dropped on government late yesterday. This is something that has been proposed without any consultation whatsoever with industry. The Leader of the Opposition should look at vendor disclosure, and I believe the member for Nelson knows this one, and that industry, particularly those involved in commerce, take these issues very seriously and want to be consulted on them. I do not believe it is right to drop these amendments on the table and expect them to be passed today, just on that basis.
There is still capacity for an employee of a private contractor to make a disclosure and be protected under the legislation. However, if that person sees a systemic failure in government at a departmental level, or corruption, bribery, etcetera on the part of a government department, they have the capacity to make a disclosure.
In relation to contracts per se and contractors, the actions of private contractors are matters for the contractual agreement. What, when, and how it is supplied are points covered in the contract. The legislation already enables the bodies supported by government funds, where control can be exercised by the Territory over a body, to be captured under the act by prescribing such a body, pursuant to clause 6(g), an employee of private companies who make a disclosure about a public body, can take action against reprisal in the courts and the act intends to protect persons who make disclosures about improper conduct of public offices and public bodies.
The focus of the legislation is about public officers, public servants, and public bodies. The opposition wants to enlarge it beyond that. Government is saying no. At this stage we are saying that our focus is on what is in the bill. Basically, as with all legislation, this will be reviewed on a cyclical basis. Other proposals can come forward when government, as a matter of process as we do with all legislation, reviews this particular bill.
I reiterate, that nurses, who are working for a nursing recruitment company that supplies nurses contracted to government and its hospitals, who see something that constitutes misconduct under the legislation, are able to report it.
Mr MILLS: I understand that is the case with contract nurses, but could you describe what sort of coverage an employee of St John Ambulance, for example, contracted by the Territory government, have if they identify corruption, that may be collusion between two parties - the private and the public, are they protected?
Dr BURNS: I was a bit diverted there, member for Blain. I got the gist of your question. In short, St John Ambulance could be covered, if it was to be prescribed as a body under the section that the member for Nelson was talking about. I believe it is clause 6(g). That could occur; it could be prescribed. If an employee of St John Ambulance, in the conduct of their duty whilst they were at the hospital with a patient, saw something or became aware of something that really constituted misconduct, they could make a disclosure to the commissioner and be protected under the legislation.
Mr MILLS: I note, in your response to the member for Nelson, that there is the capacity, perhaps, to include such bodies in clause 6(g). Would it be more appropriate then, to go down the path that the opposition is proposing, so that we have it quite clear that the object of this is to ensure that public funds are protected? We are not worried, necessarily, about who it is, but that it is public funds that are being administered. This notion received significant support in the research project.
I am wondering whether the Attorney-General has assessed that research and reflected on the capacity to craft something that covers all the possibilities - which seem to be vague as we throw up ideas - that could be included. Would this not be a better way of ensuring that we are able to include these matters that have been raised, perhaps, with St John Ambulance or the Environment Centre? We are not sure. Maybe this is a way of doing it.
Dr BURNS: I reiterate that to some degree it is a case-by-case basis, given the spectrum of funding and the different organisations that exist, which receive not only Northern Territory government funding, but also Commonwealth government funding. Our aim with this legislation - I will not use the word ‘capture’ – is to encompass those major organisations, that are either a part of government or closely associated with government, and other organisations, as outlined in clause 6(g), and apply some criteria through regulations to determine which bodies are going to be in and which are going to be out. We are not in the business of throwing a wide net over every organisation which receives a pitiful amount of Northern Territory government funding and that may receive substantial funding from elsewhere, or substantial funding through their own efforts of raising and generating funds.
Mr MILLS: I take from the comments that government will go no further at this point, but it would consider, as we move forward, whether it is extended?
Dr BURNS: Within the parameters of the act and clause 6(g) in particular, and the framing of legislation, the government will be looking at the criteria of which organisations should be prescribed, if any, and which are not prescribed.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I need a point of clarification here. The Opposition Leader is bringing forward some amendments and if I have a problem with the amendments, am I allowed to ask the Leader of the Opposition, or do I have to direct the question through the minister?
Madam CHAIR: It is entirely up to the Leader of the Opposition should he wish to reply to your query.
Mr WOOD: The Leader of the Opposition might – he is hoping to get some practice in for a later job.
My concern is with the first couple of clauses. I will take clause 6. The opposition is inserting:
(k) a person, organisation or corporation contracted to provide goods or services to a department or Agency.
I will give an example. The Legislative Assembly might have a lawn mowing company called Fred’s Lawn Mowing Company that has the job to maintain the lawns. Under this amendment, that would now become a public body. If we go to the second clause, under clause 7, public officers:
- (e) an employee of a person, organisation or corporation contracted to provide goods or services to a department or Agency.
Under this, the person who is mowing the lawn would become a public officer. The company is now a public body; the person working for them is a public officer. Does that mean that they now fit under the section of the act where a complaint can be made from within the public service about that employee or company? That is the bit that worries me. Where do you draw the line between, if someone thinks the company has substantial maladministration, can the company be reported to the commissioner, now that they are defined as a public body?
Mr MILLS: The answer to the question is governed by the degree that they are providing the service to government - it is at that point. That is what the focus is upon; the administration of the public funds – the discharge of the contract to government.
Mr WOOD: Right, I think I understand that. I am more worried about this person who is mowing the lawn. He is not a public servant, but all of a sudden he gets brought into this legislation, which was originally intended to look at people within the administration. Maybe it is not a problem in practice, but I am a little unclear as to whether it has, as they say in certain parts of the world now, some collateral damage that was not intended. It is just these particular clauses, as they are, that I have some concerns about, and obviously the government is not going to pass them anyway, but I believe the intention is good.
To some extent, Leader of the Opposition, some of this issue relates to 6(g). We have this grey area, where we have this legislation, but we have not defined who or what will be picked up in it.
I do not support those; not because the intent is unreasonable, but I am not really sure that we might be picking up some collateral damage that was not intended, and it may need a little refining.
Mr MILLS: Member for Nelson, we will go back to the matter of substantial maladministration. Let us say the lawn mowing contractor uses the contract and never mows the lawns here, but finds some way of mowing lawns in another country on a fact finding tour; there is the capacity of being responsible for discharging a duty that has been contracted to the government and there is an opportunity to raise that question. I take your point, but it is focused on the administration of public funds, and I believe the benchmark is guided by potential maladministration.
Mr WOOD: I suppose it is bleeding obvious that if the lawn is 3 foot tall, you are not going to pay him, because he has not done the job. It is interesting being able to question the Leader of the Opposition. I did not mean - sorry, minister. I support most of the amendments, but I do not support those parts of the amendments, because I believe at the moment that needs some more detailed analysis.
A member: Three months, six months.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendments 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5 be now agreed to.
Amendments negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move that amendment 5.4 standing in my name be supported. When we look at the list of reference to this Act, it says: ... ‘to a public officer does not extend to any of the following’ and it includes the Electoral Commissioner. It strikes me as the odd one out. In seeking support for this, I argue that, due to the nature of the role, there ought to be the ability of that position to be held accountable for public interest disclosures.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, as a matter of principle in the legislation, those who have been excluded from the act, such as the Ombudsman and other statutory office holders, have been excluded from the act because their statutory officers report to this parliament, and the Electoral Commissioner is one of them. That is the rationale for the Electoral Commissioner to be in there and I believe that it is quite a solid rationale. I understand that there is a variation in other jurisdictions, but that is why the government has decided to exclude the Electoral Commissioner from the Act.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.4 be now agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.6, in relation to clause 8. This clause allows for a person to make a disclosure about an MLA, directed to the commissioner as well as to the Speaker.
Madam CHAIR: It is actually clause 7, amendment 5.4. I beg your pardon, Leader of the Opposition. It is amendment 5.6, clause 11.
A member: 5.6? The Commissioner and Speaker, yes?
Mr Elferink: This is the Speaker.
Mr MILLS: This allows a person to make a disclosure. Our amendment allows a disclosure about an MLA directly to the commissioner as well as to the Speaker. The way government has described this, it does not that additional protection afforded someone who wants to go directly to the commissioner and there is concern about ‘may’. There is no obligation for the Speaker, notwithstanding the current Speaker, but we are not crafting this around personalities, it is around office. There is no obligation for the Speaker to refer a disclosure about an MLA to the commissioner. There is no obligation for the Speaker to inform the discloser about their decision, which is a concern, or to inform them about what they are going to do about the matter or how they are going to refer it.
This could be a concern if the Speaker is from the same party, notwithstanding the fine personalities and the nice people we have here now. It is not about personalities, it is about the position and establishing the proper system, for protection. This could be very discouraging for a member of an MLAs staff, for example, or a member within a minister’s department. Heaven forbid, that they may be so burdened by what they see and they need to go and make some disclosure and need the appropriate protection.
We only have to look as far as what happened with the staff of Milton Orkopoulos. There needs to be that additional avenue opened up, so there is that additional protection provided. The object of the exercise is justice and not protection. If it is true whistleblower legislation, this amendment is going to ensure that we provide every opportunity for the business we have seen with Mr Orkopoulos never to be repeated.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain for his amendment and raising this issue. There are a couple of aspects to this. The complaint that comes before the Speaker might be trivial or vexatious. In that case, one would expect the Speaker to exercise discretion about trivial or vexatious matters. One would also expect that the Speaker - irrespective of who is there currently, the Speaker is a very important position within this parliament, irrespective of what party that Speaker comes from; they might be an independent - would operate with discretion and integrity.
I am also advised, Leader of the Opposition, that this could possibly impact on the aspect of privileges within the Assembly.
Mr Elferink: By what mechanism would it impact on privileges?
Dr BURNS: That is the advice I have. To compel the Speaker to take a certain action would possibly be a breach of privileges, as I understand it. I will just take further advice.
I am advised, member for Port Darwin, for the commissioner to have that warrant or power over MLAs, I have been directed to Part 4, 36(1)(a) on page 23, where it says:
- Privileges of Legislative Assembly not affected
(1) This Act does not limit the privileges, immunities and powers of:
- (a) the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly; or
- (b) the Speaker; or
- (c) any other MLA.
That is the advice I have, member for Blain. Apart from the aspect I have raised that there is a conflict there.
Mr MILLS: It is simply the inclusion of – it could be the Speaker or the commissioner. It is for the commissioner to determine whether it is vexatious or frivolous. However, there may be a range of cases or matters that we cannot conceive at this moment or discuss as a hypothetical case. Nonetheless, surely, there could well arise a situation, as we have already described, where the need for another option is made available. Sometimes, power corrupts and, to prevent that occurring - and it could occur in this environment; to provide an MLA with the opportunity to go, not just to the Speaker, but to the commissioner as well. There is a just cause for this.
Dr BURNS: Member for Blain, I can only reiterate the advice that I have; that the appropriate mechanism within the legislation is that it to be the discretion of the Speaker, so the Speaker may refer to the commissioner.
Mr ELFERINK: Just for the record’s sake, more than anything else. Minister, whilst I agree or appreciate the general immunity to which you referred in your answer, the fact is that we, as members of parliament, express our will through these instruments. We are, quite regularly, happy to subordinate ourselves through these instruments, to the laws of the Territory, in the same way, for arguments sake, that the New South Wales parliament has subordinated itself to ICAC. ICAC can look at the conduct of members of parliament quite readily, because it is the will of the parliament that that power should be granted to the membership of ICAC to achieve that result.
At the more extreme end of the scale, if I commit a speeding offence and I get booked for it, I have still subordinated myself to the young constable who is booking me for speeding, by an organ which is the Traffic Act of the Northern Territory.
I do not accept that it would, necessarily, because we have certain privileges, be beyond the scope of this legislation to subordinate us to a public servant or a commissioner to do a specific job. This is equally so for the Speaker. The Speaker could, quite easily, by the will of this parliament, be compelled to be subordinate to a legislative instrument because it is the will of this House. Consequently, I do not subscribe to that argument. I am prepared to do some more homework into it. However, that is an aside.
The fact is that the capacity in the legislative instrument, as you brought before the House today, for the Speaker to exercise their discretion in an injudicious fashion, has not been covered. Considering the party system we have, and the system by which we elect Speakers, there will always be a capacity for this system to retain a flaw into the future, which will not service the people of the Northern Territory well. That is a comment for the record.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Port Darwin for his comment. I respect his point of view. He has raised some very valid points but, on the basis of what I have outlined, government will not be accepting the amendment. I tried to make it fairly plain why government will not be accepting the amendment. I have no doubt that the member from Port Darwin will go and do a lot of study, and we will hear a bit more about this matter.
Mr Elferink: I want to really go into this matter. I will have a sleepless night worrying about it.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, with respect, I have some difficulty understanding the argument. When you look at a case, for example, as has already been described, why not provide another option for someone, in the circumstances as we have already indicated with, say, Orkopolous, where they may be able to go if they feel they are unable to safely and adequately make that disclosure and have that matter weighed and measured and responded to? I still do not understand the argument of the government. It troubles me that there is not this other option made available, and we are just required to trust, when that has occurred before and that trust has been savagely abused and misused. Why not provide that? Could you please outline your argument again so that I can be assured that these matters are being properly and sensibly assessed?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, first, as the Chief Minister outlined, the matter involving Milton Orkopoulos, a horrible matter, and dastardly and repugnant acts that were committed by him, are criminal acts, and if someone has a reasonable suspicion that a criminal act has been committed, particularly in the area of paedophilia, I believe that they should really be reporting that to the police. If someone came to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, irrespective of who they were or what party they belonged to, and made such serious allegations, I would trust that the Speaker would refer that matter to the police. If there were other issues raised with the Speaker that were substantial, not trivial or vexatious, the Speaker has the option to refer to the commissioner. To some degree we should have trust in our institutions and the people who are tasked with the responsibility of carrying and fulfilling those positions.
At any time, things can fall down when there is a personality involved, a recalcitrant. It does not necessarily have to be the Speaker, it could be a statutory office holder in another jurisdiction, not in the Northern Territory, but it could be a statutory office holder, a policeman, or a doctor working in private practice or in a hospital. Unfortunately, sometimes personalities play a large role in every walk of life, however, given the responsibilities and the sort of people who are attracted into this parliament, from both sides of parliament, I think we need to have trust in our Speaker.
Mr MILLS: Notwithstanding that, we should have, and we all endeavour to, and we are not talking about Madam Deputy Speaker, but the office. Minister, in the example you have provided, you said that a person who becomes aware of criminal activity, such as paedophilia, could go to the police. But in the example that you used, and in this specific case, they go unprotected - they do not have any protection. Of course, they can go - as anyone can go - but they go in this case without the protection that this bill is endeavouring to provide.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I have just been given a table which shows what happens in other jurisdictions. In South Australia, it is the presiding officer in terms of MLAs or MPs – whatever they are called in the jurisdictions. In New South Wales, it is the ICAC, and it can be the Auditor-General, and basically, in every other jurisdiction, apart from Western Australia, where it is the presiding officer, it is the Speaker. Predominantly, it is the Speaker or the president of the Legislative Councils, where they exist; that is the predominant model. As the member for Port Darwin alluded to, a jurisdiction like New South Wales has the ICAC, and I understand in Queensland there is also a corruption body which can take complaints against MLAs.
Mr MILLS: Well, it does not seem to be a particularly strong argument to say, the whole crowd is doing this and we are sort of picking the one that is least offensive. It should be weighed on the argument, not whether we are sitting in the middle of the pack. I am wondering whether your argument has been strengthened or challenged in any way by the Australian Research Council work. Have you had an opportunity to reflect on that and to see whether your position is, in fact, strengthened or challenged in any way by recent recommendations that have come through from the research project, rather than just look at a list and say we will pick the stuff in the middle?
Dr BURNS: Member for Blain, we are a small jurisdiction. I believe this is the appropriate way to go. I believe we need to trust the discretion of the Speaker to decide whether the matters brought before their attention are trivial or vexatious, or matters that need to be referred, in the case of criminal conduct, to the police, and in matters of serious misconduct, to the whistleblowing commissioner.
Mr MILLS: Therefore the argument is, let us not go down this path because we might cast an aspersion upon the member for Nightcliff. That seems to be an emotional argument and not a moral argument. It is based on personality and I do not believe that is a good ground to establish whistleblowers legislation; protection for those who want to stand up and be protected.
Dr BURNS: Member for Blain, you adjured, that is a good word is it not, before to take personalities out of it, to forget who is the incumbent, and I have tried to argue on that basis. You have brought it back now to the incumbent, so you are arguing in circles.
Mr Mills: You said we should trust the Speaker.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair. Minister, I have a problem with the Speaker being the only person that can take the complaint, because we are a relatively small parliament but large parliament’s have a lot more people than government. The Speaker normally, not always, comes from the government and I know of a case, in days gone by, even in this parliament, where I believe the Speaker may have upset someone in his own party and did not have his job for a short period of time.
Are you saying that this could not happen; that if a complaint went against a fairly senior minister in the government it could be very difficult, and may put the Speaker in a very difficult position, by having to decide whether they pass on that information any further? If it was a substantial maladministration case that was not passed on, one could say that the Speaker could be subject to that as well. However, if it was a minor case of maladministration, could it be brushed over due to political pressure?
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair and I thank the member for Nelson for his question. These are valid issues that both the member for Blain and the member for Nelson are raising. The bottom line for me is that we need to have faith in our institutions, whether it is the Speaker of this House or members of the police force. We need to look beyond personalities. It could be asserted that maybe police do not investigate people because they are allied with the police - I dismiss that. I believe there are cases sometimes when people do not do the right thing, but the majority of the time, particularly at the level of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, where there are all types of scrutiny, including public scrutiny. I am prepared to have faith in our institutions and the people who are placed in those positions, given the calibre of people who are elected to these positions.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I wonder if we should be doing what the Victorian parliament did. It set up procedures for making a disclosure about a member of parliament. It is not a simple case of telling the Speaker. They have disclosing officers who are members of parliament. It has a fairly substantial set of procedures for making a disclosure about a member of parliament. Did the government look at the procedures of the Victorian model as a possible model for our own or did it believe that the model - you could say this is a fairly simple model; it is, the Speaker ‘may’ and that is about it. The Victorian model is more substantial.
Dr BURNS: I have heard the arguments from honourable members opposite and I understand their points of view. However, the government is determined to put trust in our institutions and the people who sit in those positions, and we believe that this is the appropriate way for our jurisdiction.
As I said earlier in committee stage debate, this legislation, as with all other legislation passed by government, will be subject to review. I believe that the government has shown that it is prepared to amend things if they are not working or require improvement. This legislation is no exception.
Mr ELFERINK: Minister, can you take me through the vehicle a person would use to make a disclosure if the subject of the disclosure was a member of the legislative assembly and the Speaker. There was a fellow called Darcy, I believe, who was the speaker for the Queensland parliament and struck, unfortunately, from the same mould as Milton Orkopoulos, when it came to his predilections. Where would I go if I wanted to make a disclosure about that person?
Dr BURNS: My recollection is that if it is a disclosure about the Speaker it is made to the Chief Minister.
Mr Elferink: Perhaps I can help you. This is in clause 11.
Dr BURNS: I apologise to the House; that was done in error. I thought I read that if it involved the Speaker, it was to the Chief Minister. I will take advice on that. Clause 11 of the bill, is it?
I apologise to colleagues. I was in error when I said that if it was about the Speaker, it would go to the Chief Minister. I apologise. As the member for Port Darwin has clearly shown it is 11(1)(b). It is: ‘otherwise the commissioner or the responsible Chief Executive’.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand this much so far; I take it that I am to read those two clauses together, that if one does not work, otherwise, then I go to the commissioner or the responsible Chief Executive. The Chief Executive of the parliament is the clerk. Is that correct?
Dr BURNS: The thrust of the second part (b), is for general disclosures to the Chief Executive of the department, who is then obligated to refer it to the commissioner. In the specific case of the Speaker, I will check and take advice.
Member for Port Darwin, I have taken advice on this very interesting issue that you have raised. It may have been audible to you what the Clerk said; that for the purpose of administrative orders that it is probably the CEO of Chief Minister’s who is the CEO of the Assembly. I hope I am not misconstruing what the Clerk said.
The Clerk: A little, yes.
Dr BURNS: I am a little misconstruing, so I better get it right.
There is a spectrum of views here, member for Port Darwin. I have taken advice and I understand it will be possible to clarify this within the regulations. The intent of the act, in terms of the Speaker, is that the complaint should go directly to the commissioner.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. That is the answer I expected. I presume, in that case - and I am going to operate on the assumption that the Clerk is, essentially, the CEO of the department, because the ministerial structure is the same. You have a minister – in this case the Speaker, who has a ministerial role and has a department operating under her; last time I checked, it is called the Department of the Legislative Assembly. So, you then have a very senior public servant in charge of that department.
I read clause 11(1)(a) and (b) as two completely separate organs, without the capacity to relate to each other. If the disclosure relates to an MLA, other than the Speaker, then the report is made to the Speaker. I cannot reconcile that with ‘otherwise the commissioner or responsible Chief Executive’ if it is still referring to the MLAs. It just does not read that way. I suspect a court would struggle to find that interpretation.
Following the logic of this and assuming that what you said is correct; that those two sections are read together - not something that I can instantly follow - and the subject of the complaint or the disclosure is the Speaker, the discloser then goes to the Clerk and the Clerk goes to the commissioner. If that is the case, then your argument about privileges has just defeated itself. What you would find, even if it was the head of the Chief Minister’s Department - as you just described as the other option - even in that case it is still sidesteps the issue of privileges - that the report is being made to the commissioner. In that world view, if you take either of those two interpretations, then it must follow that the amendment being brought to this House is logically and substantially correct and deserves the support of this House in providing an effective and proper way to deal with what is otherwise going to be a flaw in this legislation.
Dr BURNS: I can only reiterate the advice that I have had; that it is within the purview of the regulations to clarify this matter. However, I say further to the member for Port Darwin, that a complaint against the Speaker may not necessarily relate directly to the functions of the Speaker in relation to the Department of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK: That is a bit of a long bow to draw. I was not going to respond to it, but I will. In the case of Mr Darcy who, if memory serves me, was the Speaker of the Queensland parliament. If he is engaged in, or if the Speaker is engaged in sexual conduct with children, it reflects on the duties of the Speaker. It is a massive oversimplification of the roles and the duties of the Speaker, if you are simply going to keep it within departmental guidelines. I do not think there is a departmental guideline that says you will not have sex with children, it is just something that you would assume the Speaker would not do.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, as with the case of Milton Orkopoulos, the case of Mr Darcy involved child sex abuse, and that is a matter that should be reported to the police. MLAs are in a unique position, because of parliamentary privilege and our positions; even more so with the Speaker. There is not much opportunity or another pathway, except to refer matters involving the Speaker to the whistleblowing commissioner.
Mr ELFERINK: I have made my point.
Amendment negatived.
_______________
The committee suspended.
_______________
_______________
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you are to move amendment 5.7.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, this amendment relates to how a public interest disclosure is made and it is an attempt to provide a check and a balance - quite well described by the member for Sanderson - recognising that it is possible for a legitimate matter to be stalled and bogged down in process and for the complainant to be worn down. This provides the opportunity for another pathway to be opened. After a period of time, described in the amendment as six months, as the two discrete reporting periods, if it is reasonable, the person making the disclosure, may then step up the investigation, by informing either a member of parliament or a journalist.
That does not happen immediately and there are processes that must be adhered to, but it provides a capacity for escalation. The cases that have been described in this debate give evidence of the need for a further check and balance to prevent processes being bogged down. We also note that there is the need for discrete time frames. If those two time frames have not been met, then there is the opportunity, in the interest of the public good, for that person to go and make the disclosure to a member of parliament or the media, and by so doing, provide a check and balance to the system.
As you have instructed or adjured, I believe was the word you used, minister, was for us to have faith and confidence. That is good. If we were all to have faith and confidence in our institutions we would not need whistleblowers legislation. We have had a couple of cases, referred to in the Chamber, that, sadly, reflect the need for whistleblowers legislation, cases that, I believe, also feed the argument for the need for a check and balance - a check to the system. That is, if the process has been found to be untimely, slow, delayed or inadequate, then the next step can be taken. I trust we have support for this.
Dr BURNS: I believe we are talking about the timeliness of responses and ensuring that matters do not get bogged down within the process. There is a process for reporting, member for Blain, on page 48.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Chair! This is about being able to make a disclosure to a member of parliament or the media.
Dr BURNS: Sorry, I misunderstood but I …
Mr MILLS: Yes, but it is related.
Dr BURNS: I have already spoken about why the government will not be supporting disclosure to the media. I mentioned that New South Wales is the only jurisdiction with this particular provision. My advice is that it has been used very rarely, if at all. Those who want to disclose to the media, go ahead and disclose.
I also outlined a reasonable scenario where someone would have the protection of the whistleblower legislation - the protection of indemnity against prosecution for criminal matters or civil actions because they disclosed using the process. Their complaint or disclosure may not have been worthy of further investigation or there may have been a variety of reasons why adequate proof could not be compiled. That person then has the right to go to the media and make a disclosure, and the media would publish. Whilst that person would have indemnity, an individual in the public service or a company they are associated with, may be named in a newspaper article or the media, their reputations could be blackened and they would not be afforded natural justice or any recourse to the courts.
That is part of the reason why we do not believe disclosure to a journalist will be the governments’ position on this. It was not an issue raised during the consultation period. There is also the definition of a journalist to consider. We know Nick Calacouras of the NT News and Kyrrie Blenkinsop from Channel Nine, but what about some blogger out there who fancies themselves as a journalist and is given licence to print and do anything they like. That is another part of the problem. We are setting up this independent body, the whistleblower commissioner, a statutory officer, with powers of investigation and with an obligation to publish their results. In that context, member for Blain, the government will not be supporting your amendment.
Mr MILLS: Perhaps it is not recognised - I am sure you can see it - that the way the amendment is crafted is to provide that next step; it is not done as an immediate reaction if someone does not get a fair hearing.
You have asked us to strengthen the processes and have some confidence in the institutions. In the processes that have been described, there is the capacity to go through that and have a reasonable period of time transpire before you have the option of escalation. It also needs to be considered that because someone takes it to a journalist does not mean that it will make it into the media. They have filters, and checks and balances as well. Journalists will tell you they have many people come to them and tell all sorts of stories.
However, we are talking about someone, who has gone through the system as described and comes to a point where they need to escalate that; it is the capacity to escalate. If we lived in a perfect world we would not need whistleblowers. However, we live in an imperfect world, and we have seen systems in place in other states where people have gone through the system and been unable to take it any further.
As you said, it is very rare that someone will take it to the media. Why? Because of the difficulties they face through being exposed by that system, and unable to speak up, knowing that there could be other consequences, and they go unprotected when they go to either a member of parliament or to the media. We are not hoping that does occur; we would hope that the system works. However, if it does not, what then? We have seen these cases such as Toni Hoffman. She had to go that next step and she was unprotected in from the time she noted the issue and started to seek investigations and made her reports - she had a hell of a time. It was only when she took that unprotected step, and escalated it, that the matter was attended to and ‘Doctor Death’ was dealt with.
We need that level of escalation otherwise we say, give it a go. I do not think that because, ‘only New South Wales is the only place that has it’, is a strong enough argument. We have to think about this, and recognise that the research project has identified that this is an effective means to provide the best level and the highest quality protection for citizens.
Dr BURNS: My advice, in the case of Ms Hoffman in Queensland, is that the whistleblowing legislation and mechanisms are quite different to those which will operate through the bill the government has brought forward. We have an identified whistleblowing commissioner, whereas the Queensland system does not; it is a system within departments. That is a major difference.
The view of the discloser is a subjective view. They have been through a process that they are not satisfied with but, the difference is, the current arrangement, where people go to the media with concerns, and there are checks and balances; there is another dimension under what is being proposed - that person will be indemnified. That is a level of protection that is not afforded to ordinary citizens who are making a disclosure.
Furthermore, member for Blain, your amendment only applies to public officers; it is selective. You are saying that a public officer can do that, but someone else cannot. Whereas, in the whistleblowers’ legislation, that we have put before parliament, anyone can make a disclosure; any member of the public can make a disclosure. For that reason, we will not be supporting your amendment.
Mr MILLS: I am not going to go all night on this. I believe it is an adequate step, and it is necessary to provide that ultimate check and balance on the system. I am disappointed that the government takes that view, but we maintain that it is the right thing to do.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS (by leave): Madam Chair, I move amendments 5.8 and 5.10 to clause 12.
Madam Chair, this amendment will oblige the Speaker to refer the disclosure to a committee of the Legislative Assembly, if the disclosure has not been referred to the commissioner. We know that they are not going to allow public information disclosures about MLAs to go directly to the commissioner, then there must be an obligation for the Speaker to do something with the disclosure that has been made.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I am advised that the amendment being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is not part of the whistleblowing process in any other jurisdiction. Furthermore, what sort of committee will we have? You have not been clear - is it going to be a privileges committee? That is usually appointed by the resolution of the Assembly. The advice that I have, and the member for Port Darwin might disagree, is that such a committee may not protect the disclosure as effectively as investigation by the commissioner, in terms of confidentiality and anonymity.
Mr MILLS: These matters could be resolved by way of regulation, but nonetheless, it is important for someone who is making a disclosure to know what decision has been made, and to have that follow through. With regard to a person making a disclosure to the Speaker, they should know what determination has been made on their behalf.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, we have been through this in other parts of the amendments brought forward by the opposition. The government has a very strong position that we uphold the position of the Speaker, that we believe in the integrity of the Speaker’s position - putting aside personalities - and we have faith in the institution of the Speaker. I am advised that, traditionally, the Speaker has dealt with such matters, and in a number of other jurisdictions, the Speaker deals with these types of issues.
Mr MILLS: Rather than labour it, we beg to differ. It is not a matter of personalities, and I will make that absolutely clear - but the Speaker - we are crafting something that should provide an ultimate check and balance. The issue is getting to the truth of the matter, not protecting the institutions or instruments. There is that necessity, in order to have an effective mechanism, for the system itself to provide that check and balance, and I believe that this is a means for that to occur. I am disappointed that the government has already taken its position, but we put these on the record and they will stand.
Amendments negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.9.
This is an important matter which relates to the need for follow up. If a disclosure is made to the chief executive, this amendment will require the chief executive to refer the disclosure to the commissioner within 14 days, and to report this referral to the whistleblower within 14 days. It is important to give reassurance to a person who has taken that step forward. You have seen the statistics – in this study, they found 61% of people who had seen levels of mismanagement and perhaps malpractice within a system, but it is only a very small number that take the step to make a formal complaint.
Once they have taken that step, I believe it is an important acknowledgement to report back to them within 14 days - within a discrete period of time - so they have the sense of being heard, that their issue has been responded to, and receive some feedback. If someone comes to see you, as a MLA, and you do not give them feedback, you know how they feel about that. In this case, it is escalated to a very high level and there are not many people, but when they do take that step, you need to provide a discrete period for when they are to be given some proper feedback.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I acknowledge what the member for Blain has said. We are prepared, through regulation, to set some time lines around this particular issue, as well as other issues. It is acknowledged that there needs to be feedback. Obviously, on receipt of a disclosure, at the beginning of an investigation, there should be acknowledgement, and throughout the investigation it is reasonable to expect that people get feedback.
I know that government is not going to be prescriptive about the time frame, after X days, 60 days, 70 days, as I alluded to earlier in this debate, that as with other investigations, the more complex ones, with things happening at different levels; I believe we need to have some flexibility. I give an undertaking that, within the regulations, there will be a reflection of the need to feedback about the receipt of a disclosure and also about progress and the result.
Mr MILLS: This is probably as good as it gets; there is acknowledgement of the need for some structure around the response to the one making the disclosure. I will not push it further, but I do hope that it will not be vague or delayed in its crafting and application. Can you give us an indication, minister, of what you have in mind regarding regulations on feedback to the one making the disclosure?
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Blain. I believe some parts of it are straightforward and some are more complex. I believe we need to look at other jurisdictions. I give the undertaking that I will formally correspond with the member for Blain and let him know what the regulations are.
- Mr MILLS: Thank you.
Amendment negatived.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain. I can see where he is going with this, but this has been intentionally worded in this way because a matter may be investigated under another act. For example, if a matter has been referred to the whistleblower commissioner which is a criminal matter that is referred to police, it may be investigated under different acts. That is why it appears the way it is. That is why, on technical grounds, I cannot accept your amendment.
Mr MILLS: Can you assist me with that? I can see that there could be a problem if someone making a disclosure is told that we are not going to proceed because it has already been investigated, when that person would be expecting the investigation to have proceeded under the terms that have now been provided under this whistleblowers legislation, which provide extra protection.
Dr BURNS: I can only repeat the advice that I have received, member for Blain. The whistleblowing commissioner has the discretion to refer matters on; it could be to the Ombudsman or the police. Police may investigate that matter or it may have already been investigated by police, in the context of a criminal matter. In that case, it has already been investigated in the dimension that the whistleblowing commissioner would have referred it. That is why this appears in the form that it does.
Mr MILLS: I will not proceed any further, thank you.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.11 be agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Madam CHAIR: Is leave granted for the Leader of the Opposition to move amendments together?
A member: Hold on, we have the member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Can I speak on clause 22, please? Under Division 2 – Referral of public interest disclosures for investigation by other entities.
Madam CHAIR: Sorry, member for Nelson, pause a moment please. Yes.
Mr WOOD: Minister, section 22(1) says that: ‘If the commissioner considers it appropriate, the commissioner may refer a public interest disclosure, other than a referred MLA disclosure, to any of the following (each of whom is a referral body)’. Am I correct in saying that if the Speaker does refer an MLA complaint to the commissioner, the commissioner cannot pass that over to the Ombudsman, the Police Commissioner, the Auditor-General or a person or body prescribed by regulation?
Dr BURNS: Member for Nelson, that is a very good question. I am advised that if the Speaker does refer a matter to the commissioner, which involves a MLA, it cannot be referred to any of those referral bodies. Nonetheless, the Speaker can refer the matter directly to any of those referral bodies.
Mr WOOD: That makes it more complicated minister, does it not? It sounds a bit strange that the Speaker can send the issue off to a referral body but the commissioner cannot. It seems to be at odds and what does it really matter, as long as it ends up with the referral body if it needs to? Is that a practical problem?
Dr BURNS: I am advised, and there was some discussion earlier, that this comes back to a matter of privileges. Under Part 4, clause 36, it outlines privileges and that the act should not limit the privileges in relation to the following. This is a matter of privileges and that is why that mechanism exists the way it does.
Mr WOOD: I will not labour it - I need to get it clear in my head, though. The complainant could go to the Speaker about an MLA, who can send it to the Ombudsman, the Police Commissioner, the Auditor-General or a person or body prescribed by regulation. I am not sure where it says that, maybe you can tell me. However, under this section it says that if it is sent to the commissioner, it cannot go to the Ombudsman, the Police Commissioner, the Auditor-General or a person or body prescribed by regulation. I am a little lost there, minister.
Dr BURNS: I am advised that this falls within the general discretion of the Speaker to take such action.
Mr MILLS (by leave): Madam Chair, I move amendments 5.12 and 5.13 together. I suspect this will be something that the minister will respond to by saying it will be contained in regulations, but I believe that the establishment of time frames for updates should be contained within the bill.
First, within 14 days, there is initial acknowledgement of receipt by the commissioner. That is self-explanatory. Second, within 90 days, the commissioner must advise (a) that the investigation has commenced, (b) that an investigation has commenced but is not complete; or (c) that the investigation has been completed. Third, at intervals of no greater than 90 days, further reports advising the progress of the disclosure are provided. That is also self-explanatory.
It is worth noting that this was one of the key recommendations in the submission to the House of Representatives inquiry into whistleblowing by the Attorney-General. As you have said, there are not that many people who go through the system, however, it makes sense that we need to have a system that provides rigour, to ensure that the one making the disclosure is kept close and in the loop. The amendment also provides the mechanism, which the government has indicated it is not going to support, that if this process goes on indefinitely, there is the opportunity or the trigger for the escalation of the investigation by reporting to an MLA or to a journalist.
I know where government stands on that. Nonetheless, I argue that there is a need for this kind of rigour around the process. Otherwise, we could have it bogged down indefinitely and those making the disclosure may be left hung out to dry, and not sure how things are going; that is the last thing we want.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain for raising this issue as part of his amendments. I have flagged that government is prepared to look at time lines and their inclusion within the regulations. The member for Blain does have a point about keeping people informed, and not letting things blow out unnecessarily. However, the government would also like to keep some flexibility. Beyond the assurance that, I have already given the member for Blain, once the regulations are formed, I will write to him and specifically address the issues he has raised.
Amendments negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.14. In the bill presented by the government, there are some matters that I believe require some rigour; that is, the words that ‘the commissioner may require a responsible authority to notify the commissioner’. That is, the commissioner may require a responsible authority to notify about progress on implementing recommendations.
In clause 32(2), it says ‘the commissioner may report to the minister on the investigation’. Our amendment will require an agency to report what steps it will take to respond to the commissioner’s recommendations, or give reasons for not taking any steps. This is the start of the provisions that will keep this process open and accountable. You have to report and hold yourself accountable. You cannot say, ‘we may or may not’; we are left with that option and we need some rigour around this. We are dealing with matters that you say are rarely undertaken, but if they are, they need to be taken seriously and we need to ensure that there is no wriggle room, or that someone may or may not advise of what steps they may or may not take as a response.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, the government has taken the course of action in clauses 32 and 34 to make it consistent with the reporting notification requirements of the Ombudsman’s legislation, which I believe works quite well There are some people who think the Ombudsman’s inquiries take too long sometimes, but I believe that the quality of the work the Ombudsman does and the detail the Ombudsman needs to furnish as part of the report, is sometimes the reason why things take longer than some people want. There are often complex issues raised and there is a lot of detective work in many inquiries. We framed clauses 32 and 34 so that they are consistent with the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act, and that is why our government will not be supporting the amendments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: So you are saying that, under this bill, if a commissioner makes recommendations, there is no obligation for an agency to report what actions it will take in response to those recommendations?
Dr BURNS: I am advised that if the commissioner requires them to show what steps they have taken, then they must. There would be cases where the commissioner may not require, and I understand that that is also consistent with the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act. It is consistent with existing Ombudsman legislation.
Amendments negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.15.
This relates to the cental issue of the whistleblower and an acknowledgement of the need for protection and the need for recognition of the step that they have taken, and this will oblige the commissioner to report the agency’s response to recommendations to the whistleblower, to ensure that they are kept in the loop and to give them peace of mind. That is one of the recommendations, to ensure that you are minding the interests of the one who has stepped forward. I urge the minister to consider the need for the whistleblower to be made aware of the recommendations.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I am advised that what is proposed in this amendment is actually covered in clause 34(1) that:
- Within a reasonable time after completing an investigation, the commissioner must give written notice of the following to the discloser:
(a) the findings of the investigation;
(c) … steps taken to give effect the recommendations.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, the definition around ‘reasonable time’ is loose, and we provide the opportunity for some rigour that would tighten it, so that there can be a reasonable expectation, within a discrete time frame, for that report and recommendation to be made to the whistleblower.
Dr BURNS: Member for Blain, once again, I have given the undertaking that reasonable time frames will be incorporated into the legislation, with the proviso that there needs to be flexibility maintained, for the reasons that I have outlined on a number of previous occasions.
Mr MILLS: I accept that.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.16. This is to provide rigour, and that rather than the commissioner ‘may’ report, we would like to see the commissioner be required to report. In the bill’s current wording, if the commissioner believes that steps taken by the agency are insufficient to address a problem, then the commissioner may make a report to the minister. Our amendments will make it a requirement for the commissioner to report to the minister in that instance. If the commissioner is of the opinion that not enough has been done to rectify the problems that led to a disclosure, then there must be a clear process to raise this issue further and make it the responsibility of the minister of that agency - make them aware of it.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, once again to the member for Blain, I am advised that these particular clauses, in the act as it stands, are consistent with the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act, therefore, government will not be supporting an amendment which make it inconsistent with that act.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.16 be now agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.17. This relates to the fact that any report given to the minister must be given to the police minister for consideration. Whilst two of the considerations are valid and reasonable for the role of the police commissioner, the fact that they would not otherwise be in the public interest also raises some concerns. The Police Commissioner is the chief executive of the department and his position could influence his decision. So there is the possibility of some conflict of interest here.
Dr BURNS: I will take some advice, Madam Chair.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Dr BURNS: It is very sad to see members opposite, particularly the member for Araluen, making a mockery of this committee stage of parliament.
Ms Carney: Give it up.
Dr BURNS: Very boisterous tonight, member for Araluen.
Ms Carney: Give it up. You should have been across it sufficiently, my friend, but you are not.
Dr BURNS: This particular section or clause gives the Police Commissioner certain discretionary power and obviously: ‘(a) may materially prejudice an ongoing investigation by a police officer; or (b) would endanger the safety of any person; or (c) would not otherwise be in the public interest’. I believe this is the one that the Opposition want taken out.
These are discretionary powers on behalf of the Police Commissioner and could be in relation to telephone intercept material that would compromise the investigation; public or personal safety; police methodology; or informant identity. There may be elements, of the way in which police do business, that would not be in the public interest to be disclosed and I believe the commissioner should have the discretion to withhold that material from publication.
Mr MILLS: In the event that it is a matter relating to an inquiry or an investigation into the police, could you not see a potential conflict?
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Blain and Madam Chair. Ultimately, this is a request by the Commissioner of Police to the whistleblowing commissioner. Arguments put forward by the Commissioner of Police would be weighed up by the whistleblowing commissioner, who would then make a decision about whether it was or was not in the public interest.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.17 be agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.18, which has been referred to before; the need to change from a reasonable time which, perhaps, the members opposite think eight years is a reasonable time to move from an announcement to this stage, where we are discussing something; that could be a reasonable time. Let us draw a circle and say 28 days and put some rigour in this.
Dr BURNS: As I have stated previously, member for Blain, the government does accept some of the arguments you have made about having some more definition around time frames, but still reserving the right to be flexible, given the nature of different investigations and circumstances. Through the regulations, we will endeavour to foreshadow reasonable time frames or a process by which those things can be communicated to the discloser and others.
Mr MILLS: Thank you.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.18 be agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 5.19, which gives the person holding the title of Ombudsman the role of Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner. The opposition believes that the Ombudsman has a proven track record of being at arms-length from the government, has retained the provisions for the Ombudsman to be sufficiently recompensed for the demands of the job. We have also ensured that the bill contains the requirement for the commissioner to swear on oath or affirmation to uphold the provisions of the act. We sincerely believe this is the better option.
Dr BURNS: I believe I have put the government’s position squarely. This was something the government spent much time thinking about, and it weighed up and looked at other jurisdictions. Once again, as we have debated, this is not about personalities, it is not about people who are occupying positions; this is about looking at what the Ombudsman really does. The Ombudsman in the Northern Territory is not only the Ombudsman, but also the health services complaints commissioner. There have been instances where the Ombudsman has had to refer matters from the health services complaints commissioner to the Ombudsman. It has created some difficulties. I am not saying it is illegal or inappropriate, I am just saying that it creates difficulties in a small jurisdiction. That is why the government has determined that the Information Commissioner should be the whistleblower commissioner. I would expect that there will be a fair bit of interplay between the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner in terms of matters being referred; particularly from the whistleblower commissioner to the Ombudsman.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry. Please bear with me. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. You said that the Information Commissioner would have this role as well as being the PID Commissioner.
Dr BURNS: Yes, I said that in the second reading speech.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly because that is not what the bill says. The bill says anybody selected by the Administrator, as far as I can see, is that correct?
Dr BURNS: That is correct, member for Port Darwin, but I did foreshadow it in the second reading speech. It is on the record. People are aware that it is a policy position of the government. It is flagged up and it will take effect through the regulations. It is a matter of saying to people: this is what is going to happen.
Mr ELFERINK: My problem is that this is a separation of power, and this is why I sometimes refer to complaining about Caesar to Caesar - it does not work. The opposition feels strongly - I am of the opinion as well - that you really run the risk, if you keep the legislative instrument in its current structure, that a future Chief Minister may choose to place the PID Commissioner anywhere within the executive arm of government.
Ms Lawrie: Aah!
Mr ELFERINK: Read the legislation. We have, ‘Aah’ from the Treasurer, but that is exactly what can happen under this act. The problem with that approach is that any Chief Minister, including a Chief Minister from this side of the House, should that occur, could also do the same thing. We are arguing that the Ombudsman, who is an officer of this parliament, would be a far better positioned person, than somebody who is selected by the Chief Minister. Otherwise, what you have is the Chief Minister determining who the PID Commissioner should be. That is not a satisfactory situation. I note that the minister has said that the government has turned its mind long and hard to this particular issue. I suggest to the minister that they should turn their mind to it again.
It is quite possible, and it is my understanding, that the FOI Commissioner does not report to this House directly, but reports to a minister. Am I correct in that? Someone help me? It is my understanding that is the case. If that is the case, that still places this commissioner in the same position. If it is not the case, then so be it. However, the fact is that is not what the legislation says. You say: ‘Trust me, it will be in the regulations’. But we have not seen the regulations; they have not been drafted yet, I presume. This ‘trust me, she will be right’, approach could be curtailed by saying, make the PID Commissioner an officer of this parliament, so that they can do their duties fearlessly and thoroughly.
If there is a situation, where let us say, a minister gave away a Toyota, for arguments sake …
Ms Carney: Let us just say.
Mr ELFERINK: … let us just say, to settle a land issue or something of that nature, then I hope that it is not the executive that investigates itself in these situations.
Dr BURNS: The whistleblowing commissioner will be an independent statutory officer. That is very important, and goes beyond the arguments that the member for Port Darwin is putting forward. The whistleblowing commissioner is an independent statutory officer.
Mr ELFERINK: You missed the point entirely; ‘appointed by the Chief Minister’, okay, in legislation ‘by the Administrator’. We do not have to jump through all the hoops. ‘Appointed by the Chief Minister’ - the Chief Minister picks the winner - that is the deal.
Mr MILLS: It is interesting that the original government draft bill in 2006 identified the Ombudsman as the appropriate commissioner …
Mr Elferink: For all the same reasons.
Mr MILLS: For all the same reasons. You will also note, from the amendments we have provided, that there still is an opportunity for an independent clearing house, but the Ombudsman is standing as the commissioner, which provides that level of independence from government, so we can have a system which does achieve the objectives.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain for the issues he has raised. The Chief Minister has foreshadowed amendments to the Ombudsman’s Act. I am not going to pre-empt the debate, but there will be significant reforms of the Ombudsman’s Act and the roles and responsibilities of the Ombudsman and the type of work that the Ombudsman does.
I am not going to say anymore than that, but in that context, government has given some thought to the role of the Ombudsman - a dual role of Ombudsman and Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. The House will see through and make judgments about the amendments to the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act. Therefore, the government deliberated on this and the decision was made that it should be the Information Commissioner, and the Information Commissioner should also be the whistleblowing commissioner, for the reasons that I have outlined before.
Amendment negatived.
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, to move amendment 5.20.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, could we move to amendment 5.21.
Madam CHAIR: Yes. Leader of the Opposition, can I clarify with you, your amendment to 5.20 …
Mr MILLS: Have we put that to the vote? Sorry.
Madam CHAIR: I am asking you to move 5.20.
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, you may move the amendment 5.21, seeking the omission of clause 42.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Chair. We will not proceed with our amendments to clauses 42 and 43, however, I will now move our amendment to clause 60.
The bill attempts to exempt all information submitted or created through a PID investigation from freedom of information requests. It is proposed to make documents exempt only if that document identifies or tends to identify the discloser, or a person a disclosure has been made about.
By exempting all whistleblowing documentation, the government has proven that it is not serious about creating an open and accountable government. This amendment provides the opportunity to ensure that the government is open and accountable.
Dr BURNS: I thank the member for Blain for bringing this amendment forward. I understand his intention of making the process accountable and transparent, but there are real difficulties with this, member for Blain. I foreshadowed them when I spoke in my wrap up speech. Much of the information gathered by the whistleblowing commissioner in their investigation is confidential, and very importantly, under normal circumstances, its disclosure would be breaking the law, as the member for Port Darwin alluded to in his speech. There are more problems with this. If this information were available, it could lead to the ready identification of the discloser.
I will just read the brief that I have regarding this. The current provision, that it is not in the public interest to disclose information in the possession of a public sector organisation about a public interest disclosure, including information likely to lead to the identification of a person who made a disclosure, or of a person against whom a disclosure is made, is based on Victorian legislation, and similar provisions in Tasmania, New South Wales, and Queensland, unless there is a compelling public interest reason. I am advised that Western Australian exempts only information that reveals identity.
Some further advice that I have is that the proposed amendment is too narrow, as it conflicts with the confidentiality provisions in the bill. It would be nonsense if staff cannot disclose confidential information, that is, information about a public interest disclosure or its investigation, other than the information in the public domain acquired when performing official duties, except in restricted circumstances. Yet, a person could make application under the Information Act and obtain the same information in another way. In other words, I am being advised that to pass such an amendment would open a back door, to people obtaining information within the public sector that they would not normally be able to access. That is one aspect. It is an offence to disclose that information and, furthermore, staff cannot be called to give evidence before a court about such information.
Such an exemption is necessary to provide full and frank cooperation in investigations. Witnesses know the extent to which their statements will be kept confidential. Some witnesses may be obliged to give self-incriminating evidence in the investigation and that evidence should not be available, except as provided in the bill. If you remember, there are some sections in the bill about self-incriminating evidence, given before or to the commissioner, and how that does not translate into evidence that is then forwarded on to a court, as I understand it. That is correct.
Although such information may be protected by other exemptions in the Information Act, it is preferable to be clear that such information is exempt, as is the current exemption for information under the Ombudsman Act. What we are doing with the whistleblower, is similar to what exists with the Ombudsman Act, and to have an amendment, as proposed by the member for Blain, would open up information and people accessing this information, almost through a backdoor method, that should not be available to them. In that context, member for Blain, government must oppose your amendment.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, the government must oppose this for its arguments, which are quite logical. However, can you see an opportunity here for the government, under the guise of the arguments that you have just put forward, to use this clause to hide information that is critical of the government from public view? We have the capacity, and there is discretion within the amendments, for the commissioner to decide whether that information will reveal matters related to the person concerned, but the information itself may not be related to the person but be critical of the government and therefore be inaccessible. That is the issue and that has occurred before.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, the whistleblower commissioner is an independent statutory officer. When you talk about the government, I assume you are talking about cabinet or the political arm of the government, you may even be talking about some elements within departments that may want to keep information hidden. I believe the whistleblower commissioner has the power to come to decisions, and their investigations, for the reasons that I have alluded to, both for the confidentiality of the discloser and, in some cases, giving natural justice about persons who may be the subject of that disclosure, as well as protecting information which is important for the government to protect. It could be commercial-in-confidence or a whole range of things. That is my response, member for Blain, and in that context government cannot support your amendment.
Mr MILLS: Okay. On those grounds, I will leave it as it is. That is an opportunity for openness and transparency, and I believe you have just shut a door and behind that door you can bury information, and the reason it would be buried is that it would be critical or embarrassing to the government and you have found a means to do that.
Dr BURNS: I believe the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions have this rule. There are some jurisdictions that allow some information in certain contexts and with certain provisos put on it. I believe that what you are proposing in this amendment is far and beyond what exists in any other jurisdiction in Australia. For that reason, and the reasons I have outlined before, the government will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr MILLS: Once upon a time the Territory set the benchmark and showed the way by innovation. It is a sad day when we line ourselves up in the middle of the pack with other jurisdictions, when there is an opportunity to do the right thing. I believe just because others have done it, you are doing the same. You found an opportunity to bury stuff and it is not on.
A member: Not true.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the amendment 5.23 to clause 60 be agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS) BILL
(Serial 11)
(Serial 11)
Continued from 22 October 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is a troubling matter. Perhaps some people have different views of these things. We talk about openness, honesty, and transparency and now we are talking about disclosure of interests, etcetera. Maybe some people put their mind on these matters and think, what can we say that sounds good? I believe we have to weigh on what actually is good and what is real. The Chief Minister often talks about open and accountable government and they bandy these terms about. When they have an opportunity - a real opportunity - to be truly open and accountable and, once again, it appears quite clearly that they have managed to wriggle out of living up to their own rhetoric.
They are doing the same with this bill. Yes, they have modernised it, they have made it look different and I am sure the media releases have already been drafted, the lines have been prepared and rehearsed by all, so that they can say these things in unison and ask each other questions about it during Question Time.
However, the question is: is it as it sounds? Is it, in fact, the real deal? Is it a change? We believe that there needs to be some rigour around this, to provide the government with the opportunity to create some rigour, when it comes to those who want to have a look at these matters in a very discrete and clear way. What we have is, after all has been said and done, something quite vague, that is, a committee. A committee can hide a multitude of sins. We do not know what is going on behind the term ‘a committee’.
The opposition will be moving an amendment that will provide some structure on how the disclosure of these interests can be accessed, and what penalties will be described for someone who makes an inappropriate assessment of the record, so there is some protection. We want to take it to the next step and provide that rigour.
Madam Speaker, it is disappointing, when there is an opportunity to go down a path and actually match rhetoric with reality. Hopefully, by supporting these amendments, we will have that occur in this Chamber.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I believe he has proposed at committee stage amendment and we will deal with that in committee. I assume that he supports the rest of the bill. In anticipation, I thank the opposition for their support of this legislation. This was an issue that was worked on for a long time by the Standing Orders Committee - some people would say too long.
Essentially, this bill updates our disclosure and register of members’ interests legislation - legislation which has not been significantly amended since 1982. The world has moved on since that time. The Standing Orders Committee determined to model the bill based on the Commonwealth House of Representative provisions. I was the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee for this period, and we looked extensively at members’ interest registers across the Australian parliamentary context. We determined, on a bipartisan basis, that the Commonwealth provisions were provisions that were simple, easy to understand, and would give Territorians comfort that members of parliament are transparent, and give the public confidence that the decisions they make and we make are influenced by public good, rather than private gain through a conflict of interest. Obviously, this legislation not only goes to members of parliament, but also to those people who come close to us – our partners and other dependents.
Madam Speaker, in anticipation of the opposition’s support, I thank them for their support. This has been worked through extensively by a committee of this House. I believe that I will have a satisfactory resolution to the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I would like to speak on clause 4.
Chief Minister, in relation to Registration of members’ interests, clause 4(1)(b) states ‘the registrable interest, of which the member is aware, of each related person of the member’. The definition of a related person, besides being a spouse or de facto partner of the member, it is also a child of the member, who is wholly or mainly dependent on the member for support. My question is, and I am not sure if it is in the existing requirements, that children could have a savings account with $50, or small sums of money that the children have saved up, would it not be better to say that any assets or interested over a certain value are registrable? It seems to me that it could become irrelevant, or have any meaning in relation to whether those interests could affect the judgment of a member of parliament.
Mr HENDERSON: This has been modelled on the Commonwealth parliament, and the intent of the legislation is to prevent members of parliament parking significant assets, which may be pointing to a conflict of interest, in the names of children. It is not meant to be intrusive. If you look at the schedule, there is a requirement to identify that there is a savings or investment account, the nature of the account, and the name of the bank or institution, and my advice is, other assets, excluding household and personal effects, valued at over $7500. This is not about my son Liam’s birthday account and grandma sends him $50, and we are encouraging him to save by putting $10 of his pocket money into his account every week. It is to prevent the parking of significant assets in these bank accounts. My understanding, of the way this has been structured, is that there is a requirement to identify that there is a savings account, but not to identify the amount in it, unless it is significant and valued over $7500.
Mr WOOD: That might be right, but it also says registrable interest savings or investment account. You might have five children who all have savings accounts of a few hundred dollars, would I be correct in saying that one has to register that as a registrable interest? If we have to do that, why not say that once something is valued over a certain amount, then it has to be recorded. It seems to me that kids might have savings accounts with small amounts of money in them and it might be better to say that if the total value of those savings accounts is no more than $10 000 you do not have to record it. If it was above that then it should be recorded.
Mr HENDERSON: I understand what the Member for Nelson is getting at. The fundamentals are balancing between the public’s confidence that members are open and accountable regarding assets they have, as per this register, which may, in other circumstances, lead to a conflict of interest. Also, unfortunately, the reality is that when we put our hands up for public office in this parliament, in many ways, our families come with us. In many cases, that is one of the downsides of the job; our families are brought into the public domain, given the law of the land, and the legal status of marriage and de facto partnerships, and the responsibilities of parents for their children’s conduct until the age of 18. This measure is there to ensure that there is not a loophole that would mean members of parliament could, if they wished, park significant assets in their child’s name.
I am not sure whether the Commonwealth members of parliament have to disclose that Billy received $50 from grandma, which he has deposited into his account - that is not the intent of the legislation. The legislation says that if a child has an account it should be notified on the register, and one would expect, given the whole tenure of this legislation, that if there were significant assets held by the child, then they should be disclosed. Are we going to send people off to the privileges committee because you have not disclosed that grandma Jo in Brisbane has sent Liam $50 for his birthday? That is not the intent of the legislation.
I hope that the committees of this parliament, the privileges committee and the Standing Orders Committee, are masters of our destiny - that is not what we are trying to pick up here. However, if I, as the Chief Minister, were to park a significant parcel of INPEX shares into my 8-year-old daughter’s name or the dividends from those shares, then I would have to declare that. That is the intent we are trying to reach.
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, there are two ways of going about this and after some discussion and opposition, I felt it was important to move away from vagueness, to something clearer. By removing two clauses, 5 (3) and (4), which contain such words and phrases as:
- The Register is to be available for inspection under reasonable conditions to be laid down by the Committee of Members’ Interests from time to time.
And:
- In determining conditions for inspection, the Committee of Members’ Interests must give effect to the principle that the information recorded in the register should
be generally available to the public …
If we are talking about instruments such as legislation, I believe that it is important that we try, as far as possible, to tighten them and there is the capacity and opportunity to put something down that is much tighter and clearer. Behind the conditions that have been described in the bill, there are all sorts of possibilities and it is ill-defined.
Let us take it to the next step. By removing the two sub clauses, 3 and 4, we would insert, as you have seen from the amendments - and I do acknowledge that these were circulated late; just a little later than the amendments circulated from government, but I do not believe they are too taxing – the opposition’s amendments, I imagine, are the types of things the Committee of Members’ Interests would develop. They may or may not develop these reasonable conditions. I believe we should take it to the next step, do the work here, and then describe what these reasonable conditions are, so that we can move on, without having to contend with, what is in effect, vagueness.
As you can see from the amendments, there is greater clarity about the conditions, such as, who may inspect, how it is accessed, how it is recorded. The penalties describe 10 penalty units - maybe that is adequate, maybe it is not, maybe one might want to contest that. Nonetheless, let us have something that is a little more structured and solid, rather than the vagueness in the bill presented by the government. The amendments have been circulated. I think this would be a better path to tread, rather than the open-endedness presented to us. I urge honourable members to support the amendment.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I understand where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from with this particular amendment. I believe that we can deal with it in the following way. This is more prescriptive than clause 5, regarding who may inspect the register, the requirements to not give a false name and address when signing the register, and publishing information in a fair and accurate summary. My understanding, Leader of the Opposition, is that this clause is resident in the current legislation we have. The Standing Orders Committee did look at and have modelled this legislation on the Commonwealth government’s legislation. The federal parliament has set up a specific committee of members interests to continue to undertake this task. The Standing Orders Committee determined that another committee of parliament was not warranted and that this clause should be delegated to the Standing Orders Committee of this parliament. Standing Orders should determine the inspection regime and the definition of reasonable interests around defining access to the register.
Leader of the Opposition, I propose that we let the Standing Orders Committee do that work; to consider not only the current legislation we have, but other parliaments’ provisions for access to this register. I have an absolutely open mind. For the most part, the Standing Orders Committee is a bipartisan committee of parliament and there is representation from the opposition and Independents at the moment? Not at the moment. I am sure the Independent can make a submission. We may end up adopting the existing access requirements. Let us leave it to the Standing Orders Committee. I acknowledge the intent of what you have put down.
The legislation gives the flexibility for the Standings Orders Committee to determine access to the register from time to time, without having to amend legislation every time there needs to be a change. It works well for the federal parliament. I am not going to be supporting your amendment because the Standing Orders Committee can determine the access regime. It is more flexible. Access regimes can be changed from time to time at the committee’s discretion without altering the legislation. The Standing Orders Committee can consider your proposed amendments, to determine the access regime for this legislation, before the legislation commences.
Mr MILLS: We will have to proceed on that basis. We are not going to stand all night and argue over this. However, members of the opposition are still concerned about the vagueness that is in this bill, and that those general terms do not give us the structure and the comfort that we should be expecting. However, we have put our position, and we will put it to the vote.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 5, as printed, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 taken together and agreed to.
Schedule:
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I will ask a couple of questions in relation to the schedule. Minister, regarding the section on gifts received since the date of the member’s election, and exceeding $750 in value if received from official sources, or $300 in value if received from other sources. Do you think those figures are too low to be a genuine threat to the integrity of a member of parliament? It does not say per year; it says since you were elected.
I do not believe that amount would be the cause of a MLA making a decision based on a bribe in the form of a gift. It could be the case that you have picked up, over the period since the last election, 20 gifts of $30 each from various sources. I presume that this is a total figure. I wonder why it is not substantially higher, to reflect that a substantial gift would have a chance of swaying a MLAs vote one way or another in parliament?
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, certainly, these are individual gifts. It is not accumulative or once you get to a value of $750. They are individual gifts and those values were taken from what exists in the Commonwealth parliament. The Standing Orders Committee looked at what was the most prudent upgrade of the legislation. These are the values that are required to be put on the register in the Commonwealth parliament. As it says:
- Gifts received since the date of the member’s election and exceeding $750 in value if received from official sources, or $300 in value if received from other sources
(but a gift received by a member or a related person from a family member or … friend … is not registrable … unless … the appearance of a conflict of interest …
It is the type of thinking that, as ministers, we do a lot of travel and attend a lot of functions. If you are travelling through Asia, it is customary for people to give gifts to each other. $750 was deemed to be an appropriate value that stood the rigours of the Commonwealth parliament and their register. It was determined to be an appropriate valuation to put in ours.
Mr WOOD: It is a little unclear whether that is an accumulation or each individual gift.
Mr HENDERSON: Individual.
Mr WOOD: Yes. On the second last item in the schedule, it says ‘membership of an organisation where conflict of interest with the member’s public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise’. Therefore, I have to put down in the register what I believe could forseeably be a problem, and not only that, it could be seen to arise as well. Of course, there are penalties for not doing the right thing. How does my religion fit into this?
Mr HENDERSON: Religion?
Mr WOOD: Yes. If I am a member of a particular religious society or group, a Catholic or a Protestant - whatever, and we deal with issues which might relate to the funding of an independent school, do I have to declare my religion under this section?
Mr HENDERSON: I understand where the member for Nelson is coming from. This legislation is covering pecuniary and financial interests, not moral questions that may challenge us all, as members of parliament, from time to time.
In addition, in terms of financial pecuniary interests, where people could seek to have influence over a member on a particular policy issue, this concerns us all, in terms of our religious beliefs and organisations and churches that we may belong to. There are mechanisms, at a party level, of determining how we deal with those matters of conscience. Parties have rules about how we deal with policy matters that are also matters of conscience that go to religious positions, or groups’ positions or teachings. Obviously, as an Independent member of parliament, you are free to disclose those and wrestle with your own conscience on legislation and policy positions debated in this House, or motions that go to matters of moral conviction.
The legislation does not intend to cover those challenges. It really seeks to say to all of us that we have responsibilities and that if we are members of organisations, which may open us up to influence or pressure in making decisions in the best interests of the Northern Territory, and seems to be a real conflict of pecuniary or financial interest, or potential financial gain, then those interests should be lodged in the register. This legislation has been in the Commonwealth parliament for a number of years now and it has not tested anybody in the Commonwealth parliament and I do not envisage it would test anyone here.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I am not saying that it has not tested anyone in the parliament. I am trying to look at this - it is not so much a personal conflict of interest. For instance, if a church group came and wanted some changes to legislation which would benefit that church, and I was a member of that church, or I wanted to persuade the government to give them a block of land or something, and we debated in parliament whether that should happen - is that a conflict of interest? I might not have a personal financial gain, but I could be seen to be biased in my debate on that matter, and therefore, I have a conflict of interest because of my membership of that church.
Mr HENDERSON: I thank my learned advisors. The problem with the aspirational legislation we are putting in place, to try to protect public confidence in the institutions of parliament, is that it is very hard to identify every specific issue that may come along.
This legislation is here to guide members of parliament and to ensure that members of parliament continually think - whether we are cabinet ministers, hold official positions within our parties, or Independent members - that if we are approached - and we are approached all the time, from all types of people with a barrow to push and seeking to gain some sort of edge in life – we should ask ourselves the question: Am I conflicted in this particular issue? Then we should put that out on the table, through whichever form.
This legislation that we are dealing with today, goes to members of parliament identifying financial or pecuniary interests and to give the public the confidence that members are not being influenced, in positions that they take, for personal gain - for personal pecuniary or financial gain.
We will also be debating the Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Bill. Your issue is probably reflected in positions we take in our code of conduct being members of parliament. Without pre-empting debate, the Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Bill talks about conflict of interest and members must avoid conflicts or apparent conflicts between their private interests and their official functions. Members must ensure they do not come under any financial obligation to individuals or organisations that are likely, or might reasonably be considered likely, to influence a member improperly in the performance of official functions.
That is probably a broader capsule, but I acknowledge your position. If I am part of a church that runs a school and I am on the board of the school as the local member and the school is lobbying the government for a piece of land - that is something that could come to pass. Under the code of conduct, I would expect that the member of parliament would declare that they have an interest and that there is a conflict, even though it does not go to their own personal financial or pecuniary interests; they do have a conflict, in that they are on the board of an organisation that is seeking a public benefit, in terms of land, for that particular church group.
I would expect that, under the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Bill - if it passes later this evening - a member would stand up in this House or a member of parliament would put it on the register. If you are a cabinet minister, discussing whether x and y church should be granted a block of land through the cabinet process, that you would identify the potential conflict, have that recorded in the cabinet minutes, and not be part of that particular decision. It is not picked up specifically in this legislation, which deals with financial and pecuniary interests. The particular struggle you are having is picked up in the Members’ Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards Bill that we will be debating later.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair. I do not know whether this question is too hard, but these last two clauses, one says:
- Membership of an organisation where conflict of interest …
- … with a members public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise.
- Any other interest where a conflict of interest with a member’s public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise
Mr HENDERSON: This is legislation that has been taken from the House of Representatives. It is aspirational in its intent. The legislation is there to ensure that the public has confidence in the institutions of parliament, that provide for public disclosure by members of parliament. It is the requirement for all of us to consider whether we are compromised in the decisions we make.
I am speaking from the explanatory notes, which have been taken from the explanatory notes in the federal parliament. The explanatory notes for any other interests where a conflict of interest with the member’s public duties could forseeably arise or be seen to arise, the note is: list any other interests which, in the opinion of the member, holds the potential for real or apparent conflict of interest with a member’s public duties to arise.
I am trying to think of a scenario on my feet. If you were a member of the Umpires Association or being on the Board of AFLNT, for example and also a member of government or a minister in government, considering a request from the AFLNT for money for new lights at Marrara or upgrading the change rooms for the umpires, then there would be an expectation and a requirement for you to disclose a conflict of interest. If there was a debate in this House, for example, if the government had allocated, hypothetically, a million dollars to upgrade the change rooms and during the debate there was significant opposition to the appropriation of that grant of money, there would be an expectation for you to stand and declare your interest in this parliament. Whether you had the foresight to imagine that scenario occurring, 28 days after you were elected as the member for Nelson, is another matter. Solomon probably would not have envisaged that would occur, so there would not be a requirement.
But when you stand up in this House and there is an apparent or real conflict of interest, you would be expected to say: ‘I am not going to vote on this because I am a member of AFLNT.’ Another case may arise, if we talk about INPEX, I might have been a member of one of the industry bodies for the oil and gas industry. I might have subscribed to their newsletter that comes out on a monthly basis. As an Independent member or an opposition member, you probably subscribe to all sorts of journals or you are members of organisations to get access to journals - would you necessarily put those down? No. But if you were a cabinet minister and you were also a member of an organisation lobbying the federal government on emission trading and you had to take a position on it, you would have to declare an interest.
Would you be castigated or brought before privileges because you did not put that on your register 28 days after becoming a member of parliament? No. Could you have reasonably foreseen there would have been a conflict? No. But as soon as you are aware that there is either a conflict or a potential for conflict, it is for us, as members of parliament, to identify that as soon as possible. That is what this particular clause is trying to pick up.
Madam CHAIR: Chief Minister, you have an amendment.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Chair, I seek leave to insert under the schedule. There was a drafting omission to insert a requirement for members to declare any other substantial source of income and the required information to declare that source of income. Obviously, it is very reasonable to expect. This is a drafting error, for which I apologise – the government did not pick it up.
As members of parliaments, it is appropriate that if we have a second job, for example - whatever that second job may be, that provides us with a substantial source of income - that there is a requirement and should be a requirement, for us to declare that substantial income and the source of that particular income - be it through a second job, a part-time job, a family trust, or significant financial disbursements from trusts. Obviously, shareholding is picked up elsewhere in this legislation, but it does go to the intent that, as a member of parliament, you are expected to discharge your duties to the maximum of your ability and, if you are in receipt of substantial income from other sources, then a requirement to declare those sources is a commonsense amendment to the schedule.
Mr ELFERINK: A very quick question for the Chief Minister. When did you become aware of this drafting error?
Mr HENDERSON: I am advised that we became aware of it at the end of last week. Parliamentary Counsel drafted the amendment. It was circulated to the opposition yesterday, I am advised, and formally tabled this morning. But the end of last week was when it became apparent.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. I put on the record that we received a slap from the Attorney-General for exactly the same time frame as one of the other bills that we debated before the House. Perhaps the Attorney-General would care to give the Chief Minister a similar slap.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to, bill read a third time.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MEMBERS’ CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS) BILL
(Serial 12)
(Serial 12)
Continued from 22 October 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill. However, it is important to acknowledge that statements of this kind, standards that are described, serve a purpose, perhaps, as a reminder to honourable members. We can have someone called an honourable member who may not be. We may have words that are describing the behaviour of members, but they may do whatever they like and, yet, we have a standard set.
It is important that we put into perspective, when we use words like ‘integrity’, ‘honesty’, ‘fair dealing’ and all those things, that we take the time to be challenged by what is being referred to. Otherwise, it is quite meaningless as, sadly, a lot of the processes we go through in the parliament are just for the exercise. I hope that this is not for the exercise. There are many debates and discussions we could have about ethics and morality and so on, and what this actually means. I have been involved in school communities, where you can put up on the classroom wall the type of behaviours and attitudes you expect, and you think that is an achievement. The real work takes place within each person as they respond to that in an honest way.
It is with those comments that we put this into context, and the ultimate context, of course, is the judgment that is passed by the community. It is not the standard itself - it is community expectations, whether we rise and meet that expectation, and reinforce those notions that people hold dear and they see us espouse. If we do, they will reward us by renewing their trust in us, and if we do not, no matter what is written about us, whether we have these standards described in a bill or not, the community will judge. Ultimately, it comes down to the individual, and how we carry out our own business within our own conscience and the judgment that is passed by the electorate.
I acknowledge the sentiment, but recognise where the virtue of this lies - it lies within the individual, and it is a standard that is set within the community, which will rise and fall according to how you live that out in the face of the community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have a different point of view. I support the idea of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, but I do not support the bill that is before us today. I agree with the Leader of Opposition, that the people we are ultimately responsible to is our electorate, and I hope that most of us are mature enough to realise that we have an important job as parliamentarians. We are expected to carry it out in the manner in which these clauses state, and if we do not, we will find that we will not be standing here next time around. I believe that it is the people who judge our behaviours.
I also believe in a democracy with a free press, regardless of whether we agree with it or not, that we are open to public scrutiny all the time. We are judged by the press, harshly sometimes, and at other times praised for what we do. We also have our own conscience. At times, we need to probably sit back and say, how are we travelling as a parliamentarian? In other words, look at ourselves and see whether we are doing the right thing as a person who takes on a responsible job in public office.
The problem I have with this bill, is that the Schedule, Part 2, clause 5, ‘Enforcement of the Code’, states:
(1) The Assembly may refer an alleged breach of the Code to the Privileges Committee to enquire into and report on the alleged breach.
This basically says that all those things within this code can be enforced, and not only can be enforced, can be punished, and my understanding of the Privileges Committee, you can be punished up to $2000, or you can actually go to gaol for breaches under the Privileges Committee.
I will give a few examples of why I say that is not appropriate. Some things may be easy to see, like a conflict of interest. As the Chief Minister said before, he might have shares in INPEX and did not declare them. There is the issue of acting with integrity. To some extent, that might be a person’s opinion, whether we acted with integrity or not.
Also within the Schedule, Part 2, clause 4 – ‘Commitment’, states:
- A member must not engage in any other employment or business activity that involves a substantial commitment of time and effort.
Commentary:
A member’s functions require a commitment of time and effort at least equivalent to full-time employment. Substantial commitments to other employment
or business activities are incompatible with the proper performance of the member’s representative and parliamentary duties.
This debate was probably held sometime before when we had a member of parliament who was also lawyer, but there are cases in other parliaments where farmers are members of parliament. I imagine there are some other occupations where a member of parliament has to do other work outside his normal duties. I noticed that the ex-treasurer for the previous federal government, Mr Peter Costello, has now taken on work in relation to the United Nations while he is still in federal parliament.
I question whether it is the role of the Privileges Committee to decide, (1) if someone is taking on employment that requires a substantial commitment, and (2) to punish someone who has. I believe that is exactly what the electorate would do, if it felt that its member of parliament was not giving their all, then I believe the punishment would be that they would not have that job at the next election.
Also within the Schedule, Part 2, clause 5, ‘Honesty’, states:
- Members must act honestly in all their official dealings, and must take care not to mislead the Assembly or the public.
That is exactly what this job is all about to me. Someone could make a decision or maybe this scenario might be far-fetched, but if you have a government with the numbers, that believe someone is a bit of a pest in this place and it is looking for a way of silencing that person, could it try to claim that he did something dishonest, and take that person to the Privileges Committee under clause 5 of the bill, ‘Enforcement of the Code’, and punish that person? It may sound far-fetched but you have a section which allows that to happen.
Clauses 9 and 10 of the Schedule, Part 2, ‘Accountability’ and ‘Responsibility’ are very broad. This is what it states under Responsibility:
- Members must also foster, by their conduct in office, respect for democratic institutions, rights and freedoms and the principles of good governance.
In particular, members must (not may) foster the following:
(c) recognition of the value of social and cultural diversity;
(d) fairness and integrity in official decision-making;
(e) freedom of reporting by media;
(f) the independence of the public service;
(g) freedom of speech;
(h) access to justice.
For instance, ‘recognition of the value of social and cultural diversity’. What if I did not agree with that? What if I thought that cultural diversity was causing the breakdown of democracy in Australia? This is a democracy and I would like to be able to say that, but according to this, I cannot. Whilst it is something I do not agree with, it is now written in the bill, and it is written in a way that I must do it and if I do not do it, in theory, clause 5, Enforcement of the Code could apply.
I will give one more example. Clause 11 of the Schedule, Part 2 – ‘Public interest’ - that is a very nice statement - states:
- In performing official functions, members must act in what they genuinely believe to be the public interest.
In particular, members must seek to ensure their decisions and actions are based on an honest, reasonable, and properly informed judgment about what
will best advance the common good of the people of the Territory.
It is nice, but in theory I can be judged on that, and I can be found guilty, if someone thought I did not act in the public interest. Whilst I have not got a problem with the general idea of being given some guidelines that I should work under as a parliamentarian; I do not believe I should be subject to punishment by the Privileges Committee for doing something - even something minor - against this code and find myself in hot water.
I come back to my original concept: that I am responsible to the people in my electorate. Someone outside my electorate might think of my behaviour as wrong, but might be seen by people in my electorate as quite appropriate. They might have a good laugh. People have seen me do some things from time to time and the locals think that is great. They think: ‘He is joining in. He is having a good time with the locals.’ Someone in central Darwin, who lives a different lifestyle, might think: ‘That bloke is a nutter. He should not be a member of parliament.’ Some of these things are purely subjective.
I cannot support this bill. I support the concept of having a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards as a guideline to the way I should operate as a member of parliament. But I do not believe it is fair that sets of guidelines, codes of conduct, and ethical standards can be enforced, to a point where I could be fined and, in theory, sent to prison. I do not think that is appropriate and I believe people would say: ‘You have been elected. We expect you to be a mature person in the job. We expect you to do the right thing.’ We do not need this overriding system of punishment because, in the end, the members of my electorate will make that decision for me.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I will make a few observations in relation to this legislation. Whilst I appreciate what the member for Nelson has to say, I suspect that the common practices of this House would not engender an attitude to randomly send members off to the Privileges Committee, simply because the flights of fancy of this House will take us in this direction. This place gives us enormous privileges. We are here because each of us, in our own seats, through the two party preferred system of voting, achieved a majority of the votes.
When we speak, we speak with the authority of the people who gave us a voice in this House - it is by that system that we find ourselves speaking in this place. It would be a courageous attitude on the part of a parliament, as a matter of course, to seek to silence and prevent its members from speaking their minds, by referring them to the Privileges Committee. If you want an indication of how difficult it is to form a Privileges Committee to investigate a matter, simply refer to the last sittings, where there was very strong evidence against a member, yet privileges was not formed, because it is an unusual step to go down that path.
I also note, reading the House of Representatives Practice, that the former powers of the Privileges Committee to expel members has disappeared. We cannot expel a member from the House. We may be able to suspend them - I presume this is the case in the Northern Territory, the Clerk will correct me afterwards if I am wrong - but we no longer possess the power to expel members, in the same way federal parliament does not have the right to expel members. Consequently, there are powers of suspension available to us, and we can be well guided by the operation of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act in making determinations.
I note that ‘Accountability’, which is captured in the Schedule, Part 2, clause 9, makes the reference to us being accountable to the Assembly through the normal powers and privileges systems, and to the constituents and public generally - absolutely and that is the way it should be. It would be a sad day when we form the habit of second guessing the electorates that put us here.
That leads us to what I find a surprising, but largely academic, situation in this bill referring to the Schedule, Part 2, clause 10, ‘Responsibility’. I say academic because I would not expect the Privileges Committee to be formed, in the way the member for Nelson envisages, for breaches of those subclauses in clause 10. We would remain answerable to the ultimate arbiters of our presence in this place; the voters. Nevertheless, as far as responsibility goes, there are a couple of areas which surprised me, because they do, by inference, have the effect of limiting the democratic processes to which we all hope that this House aspires.
For argument’s sake, if you take clause 10(c), the ‘recognition of the value of social and cultural diversity’, certainly a position that I hold - I have no problems recognising our cultural diversity. However, it would place other members of parliament, if they were elected on particular platforms, into a more difficult position. There are shades of the oft misquoted Voltaireian reference which refers to: ‘I may not agree with what you say, Sir, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it’. If a One Nation-type party or an Aboriginal party was to form in the Northern Territory and they won seats or a seat in this House, by very nature, both of those particular parties would be in breach of the value of social and cultural diversity, if their party platform was that they rejected social and cultural diversity.
If there was a One Nation-type party that won a seat in this place and the member came in and said: ‘I do not want Chinese people in the Northern Territory, and I am not particularly fond of Vietnamese’, then they would have the right to say so, by virtue of the constituency that put them in this place, yet, by inference, would be in breach of this legislative instrument and in breach of this Code of Conduct. They would not, however, be in breach of the voices of the people who put them in this place.
For that reason, I am mindful - whilst I understand the desire by Parliamentary Counsel and the Chief Minister, in this instance, to capture this particular concept, it may be more limiting than people immediately imagined. I am curious to know what the Chief Minister would do in the circumstance that there was an Aboriginal party which was exclusively interested in Aboriginal rights, to the detriment of all other rights. What would he do in the circumstance, where a new member, with that voice, stood up and uttered those words? Would the Chief Minister decide that was a breach of the intent of this Code of Conduct and, by inference, limit our capacity in the Northern Territory to have freedom of speech which is, supposedly, guaranteed in subclause (g) in this legislative instrument?
I notice that the term ‘freedom of speech’ is also used in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act. The term goes back to the original Bill of Rights in England which outlined freedom of speech as one of the rights. That dated back to 1688, or thereabouts, and I presume that is the legislative instrument being spoken about. Whilst noble in intent, there is capacity for these particular clauses to be in conflict with themselves.
I also make the observation, that the word ‘freedom’ as outlined - freedom of reporting by the media, freedom of speech - freedom as a concept implies responsibility, because freedom, in the absence of responsibility, is mere licence, and I do not believe that we would, or should, in this place, simply subscribe to licence for the sake of it. I urge that these concepts of freedom are treated with the due respect that those privileges entail, because if we fail to acknowledge the responsibilities that come with freedom, it will not be long before people will be taking steps to limit that freedom.
Madam Speaker, as I said, these observations are largely academic, by virtue of the fact that clause 9 says we are ultimately, and quite rightly, I might add, answerable to our electorates and to the people of the Northern Territory as a whole. I fully support that concept and, as a consequence, I believe that this bill - aspirational, I believe was the term that the Chief Minister used before - is aspirational, that does not carry, in reality, a great deal of change, as far as the status quo is concerned in terms of the rules that govern us.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate and for identifying some interesting issues which I will attempt to deal with in summing up the second reading. I also thank the opposition for their support. I will address the issues raised by the member for Port Darwin, to the best of my ability, in a moment.
This bill is aspirational, and it is bolstering, through the rules of this parliament, and now through legislation, confidence in the institution of parliament and the work of members of parliament.
This code has actually been in force, by motion of this Assembly, since March 2004, as a result of significant and substantial consideration by the Standing Orders Committee of parliament.. We are not debating the code tonight. What we are doing is enforcing the code, by the establishment and the progress of this legislation. We are not, in any way, dealing with the fundamental responsibilities, for all of us, as a member of parliament, to behave and conduct the business of a member of parliament within this aspirational role. We are saying that the legislation underpins the code and gives the power for the Legislative Assembly to refer an alleged breach to the Privileges Committee, and the committee may deal with it as a contempt of the Assembly.
The reason we have done this is because there was much community debate when we introduced the Code of Conduct, from people in the public who follow what goes on in here, with a level of detail. We all know that most members of the public do not follow much of the debate and detail in this House, but the ones who do, and many of the purists said, ‘Well, that is all well and good, but there is no enforceability provisions, except once every four years or whenever there is an election’. Any number of parliaments, some do have legislation to underpin the codes, others do not.
I agree with all members in the debate here tonight. Ultimately, it is the public who decides. Every time we go to an election, we are called to account for our performance, for our behaviour, for our attitude and commitment to the job that we do, and if we are running under the banner of a political party, for the policies that we put to the people. But all of those things go into a cocktail that determine how people vote and, ultimately, with our great democracy, it is the people who determine.
I understand the arguments from the member for Nelson in saying that he cannot support the legislation for a number of reasons. He identified a many issues that are subject to interpretation, like integrity, commitment, and substantial effort and all of those aspirational words. Yes, they are all subject to interpretation and definitions, but this really is aspirational. The member for Nelson said, if I do not live up to these aspirations I can put be put upon by this House or any member could be and sent off to privileges, like off to the tower of London and off with your head. Member for Nelson, I believe very strongly that if the House and, ultimately, the government of the day, that has the numbers in the House, were to abuse the powers that have been granted to it with the passage of this legislation, given the opposition have said they would support it, then the entire government would be held to account at the next election, in terms of being arrogant and abusing its powers. Everything that we say and do in here is recorded in Hansard.
From next year there will be video and audio streaming and if the government of the day or the parliament, with its combined numbers, was to abuse its power, by attacking a member over a point of interpretation that was quite legitimate, then not only would individual members, but I believe that the whole government, would be held in not only contempt, by the broader community of the Northern Territory, but would also be dealt with at the next election.
I do not believe that the institutions of the Westminster system would see an abuse of this power. If you go to the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges Act and achieve from the Assembly that contempt has been proven, I will read the level of proof which has to be attained under ‘Essential Element of Offences’:
Conduct (including the use of words) does not constitute an offence against the Assembly unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by the Assembly or a committee, of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member.
It is a very high bar that has to be reached in order for the Privileges Committee to determine contempt against the House and a breach of this aspirational legislation. Given the makeup of the Privileges Committee, if the government used its numbers and there was a dissenting report, I believe that the entire government would be at risk of abusing its powers. It would be a very foolish government or Chief Minister, which would abuse the powers, because they are open and public, and Territorians and Australians are very quick to spot governments that abuse their powers and are arrogant, and those attributes of government are normally dealt with very harshly by people during an election.
I understand your arguments regarding your concerns. I believe the realities and the balance in this debate and that it would be unlikely that the abuse of those powers would be used by this parliament. If you balance that potential - and I agree, there is potential - I believe it would be a foolish government that did, with other people in the community who say, it is great that you have a code of conduct but, basically, it is a toothless tiger because it is not enforced and what is the point. That is another side to the debate and we are at least putting some legislation around this to give it some teeth.
Moving to the member for Port Darwin, who went to the Schedule, Part 2, clause 10, ‘Responsibility’, subclause (c) ‘recognition of the value of social and cultural diversity’, and talked about a member who may be elected to this House under a particular party banner, whether it be One Nation, an Indigenous party - whatever single issue party that has a platform of intolerance, to use a word. I believe you just have to go to the word ‘recognition’. It does not say you ‘must embrace’ cultural and social diversity and cannot speak out in respect to that. It goes to the word ‘recognition’. I went to the dictionary to check my understanding of what the word recognition means - there are many implied definitions - and what I read was: ‘to acknowledge by admission and notice to treat as valid, as having existence, or is entitled to consideration.’
This is to acknowledge that it is valid and entitled to consideration, that we have social and cultural diversity in the Northern Territory. It does not say, although I do agree, that in terms of intolerance, it implies - and we all want to live in a tolerant society - that people who are elected to this House should have those attributes. I do not think that it goes to the point that the Member for Port Darwin was making, that it would prohibit a member being elected to this House, and having been elected to this Chamber, on that particular platform, to be able to speak to that platform. I do not believe that this code prevents them from doing that. However, I hope that I do not live to see the day in the Northern Territory that somebody is elected on that particular platform.
However, I do thank the opposition for their support. This is aspirational. I will now go to the Leader of the Opposition, who is absolutely right. It comes down to every one of us, in terms of our individual performance, and the responsibilities and decisions we take. The community does judge, every four years. However, there are elements of society and the community, who observe in detail the goings on in this House, who have called for enforcement of this conduct. That is what the bill seeks to achieve and I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Impact of Rising Crime and Lack of Leadership and Action
Impact of Rising Crime and Lack of Leadership and Action
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Drysdale:
Madam Speaker,
- I propose for discussion this day the following definite Matter of Public Importance:
The impact of rising crime on Territorians and the lacklustre leadership and action by the Territory government to address rising crime.
Member for Drysdale
Is the proposed discussion supported?
The discussion is supported.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support the matter of public importance: The impact of rising crime on Territorians and the lacklustre leadership and action by the Territory government to address rising crime.
The propaganda spin by the Chief Minister and his Labor team, or his batch of geographically embarrassed herd of sheep, or maybe I should say, leadership embarrassed herd of sheep. A couple of weeks ago, they put out their full colour back-to-back, propaganda flier into Alice Springs residential letterboxes. Many of the Alice Springs residents laughed when they saw the government depicting its commitment to CCTV and police and a tough stance on crime. I believe some even cried.
The opposition – our team - has called for a review into on-the-ground police numbers. The NT Police Association has called for the same type of review. For that, two on one, gives the public a good indication that this is the right step forward to deal with our escalating crime. That escalating crime is now at a crisis point; the crime in Alice Springs is out of control. The government, led by the Chief Minister, has no idea how to bring crime under control. Maybe crime is just another result of the Chief Minister’s so-called ‘growing pains’.
I was in Alice Springs the other day and, on that Wednesday night, a female was assaulted in the Todd Mall. The victim was in luck. A traffic patrol going through the mall came to her aid, after she broke free. Moments later, the police had the suspect in custody. A very lucky lady, indeed. It was great work by that officer and the officers and colleagues who continued into the next day investigating the assault. A crime scene had to be set up and the rest is history. Unfortunately, the police in Alice Springs are very well practiced in such investigations. They happen too regularly, particularly in the mall.
The Chief Minister has failed to deliver real accountability of criminals and to restrain crime. The Chief Minister, in his second bite at the Minister of Police, has failed to deal with the drunken, antisocial behaviour, which is the Territory’s fungal disease - left untreated for too many years - like an irritating, itchy foot, it will not go away; it is the root cause of much violent crime in the Northern Territory.
Alice Springs is no different to Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Palmerston or many of our smaller regional centres. The Todd River has flowed three times in the last couple of weeks and, with the rain falling now, will probably flow a fourth time. It is like the journey of the historical green can - a new flotilla each time – like the regrowth of fungus, it is built up each time within days of each river flow. In one issue of the Centralian Advocate, 18 November, there are the following headlines: ‘Two bashed in park’, ‘Gang attack leaves boy, 15 with serious skull fractures’ - cop this, Mr Henderson - the perils of the CBD: ‘Man bashed and robbed’, ‘Grog supplies decrease’, which then goes on to talk about beer decreasing, and spirits and wine rising, with further comments that prohibition is not working. ‘Off target rock hits car’ down along the Todd. This is all in one newspaper.
The NT News Saturday, 22 November: ‘Bashings prompt security cut backs’. Two security officers were bashed within 17 days of each other in Palmerston. One was dragged from his car and bashed unconscious - that far away from being dead. That is pretty serious business; this is a security guard. Another was ‘Police spat on, assaulted’ - three officers, on the one night, in different locations around the Territory. It does not sound good for the Territory at the moment in this newspaper. There are also the ‘Rats over run ‘Pied Piper’ town’. Sorry, it is the little rats over in Palmerston, I thought. They seem to have taken control with no consequences - none whatsoever.
From Monday to Monday – this Monday back to the previous Monday, this past week – there have been 16 newsworthy articles in the NT News on crime alone. That does not include traffic matters – 16 major incidents that have made the newspaper. That is not counting other things. That is not counting the extra four people who were assaulted over the weekend, that did not make the newspaper until yesterday. It is unbelievable that crime has escalated to such a level. I have never seen it in my policing career - I have never seen it go through the roof in such a manner. Where are we, when a security company is pulling back, or doubling its officers to ensure a safe environment? What hope does the public have under this Henderson government, when security guards in Palmerston decide it is not safe for their officers to do patrols? They are trained, so how is it safe for the public?
I can go on and talk about many other incidents. We have victims that are bashed and robbed, pensioners in Palmerston are scared to go out - we saw that in the double page spread today - they do not even want to go outside, but by staying inside leaves the rest of their property to be destroyed by the thugs.
Chief Minister, you have failed to stand up to our street thugs and drunks, leaving them with the run of our communities. Your Police Commissioner is nowhere to be seen, and is most definitely not stamping his authority - the law of the land - on our little thugs and drunks. But he will harass and penalise his own officers with more vigour than the criminals. They will accept all complaints and investigate them ruthlessly and pressure officers to apologise; apologise for locking poor little Johnny up at 1 am or 2 am, instead of berating the parents for allowing little Johnny to be on the streets, breaking into people’s houses. When they are caught, they scream like little piglets, and mostly that is the parents, but nothing happens. A complaint goes in, and then the officer has to explain why he locked up little Johnny. ‘Why was Johnny on the street?’ should be the question. Officers get spat on, hit and verbally abused, and there is silence from the Commissioner.
Stand tall and strong in the face of evil and lead us from this crisis, with strong and fair delivery of laws. Make no apology if little Johnny is caught, or even just taken home at all hours of the night; make no apology. The Chief Minister is responsible, like all his ministers are responsible. I remind the Chief Minister of comments I made in response to his policing statement in the first sittings. I will read the comments that I made, so they are fresh in people’s minds. These are from my notes, so they may not be accurate from the Hansard. ‘We have youth gangs running around our suburbs and we have the TRS tied up with red tape - instead of taking back our streets and suburbs for our families - making the life of our youth gangs uncomfortable. We have fantastically trained general purpose dogs, with handlers, also tied up in red tape; let the dogs off the chain and let us take back our communities’. I said that 2 months ago – very clear, pretty much how I am speaking today - relatively clear, not too fast and not in another dialect.
The total inability and incompetence of the Chief Minister beggars belief. I handed him two real opportunities, which would have broken up the gangs and brought back safety to our communities. They were two options; two tools to be put into the tool box and used. I said, ‘Here, these are two ideas that will work’. He had part of the answer 2 months ago and failed to act. Over 100 hundred days of government and all we have is failure; failure to act, failure to deliver for the Territory people and the victims, and their safety, failure to protect their families, and to deliver a safe community. The Chief Minister had two potential answers: very simple and within the Chief Minister’s ability to give guidance and within the commissioner’s authority to deliver - to protect our community. Both failed to listen and 2 months later, we not only have a crisis in Palmerston, but we also have a crisis in Casuarina, with men smashing up Hungry Jacks, taking on patrons and smashing them to the ground.
It is 2 months later, with the writing on the wall back then, and the Chief Minister failed to act. He has now given direction to do whatever it takes to bring this under control. I call on the minister for Police, the Chief Minister, to call for the TRS to go out on aggressive, disruptive patrols into Palmerston from tomorrow night. Make the call, to ensure public safety, for no other reason. Our reason for being in this public domain, this parliament, is to offer safety to the public - tomorrow. Do not wait for the task force being established to be fully engulfed. Make the call and have it happen by tomorrow. Pay the penalty rate that you may have to pay. For the public safety, it is not much.
Once the new task force, which is being set up at the moment, is on the ground and effective, have the TRS begin work in Casuarina. Work on the gangs there. Break up those gangs, so that they are disrupted. Then you can provide other services to give assistance to and work with the families. Put your orders in and have TVs taken off people. If you do not break up the gang, they will continue to run riot. Once they have done in Casuarina, why not send them to Alice? Let us get control of the streets in Alice Springs - make our public safe.
Ms Carney: Hear, hear! Why not do the same for Alice Springs?
Mr BOHLIN: Exactly. We are here for the entire Northern Territory, and we must deliver a safe community for all of them and we must take every reasonable step to do so - now. You had the answer 2 months ago. I cannot believe that he did not take it up. It was not unreasonable and I guarantee the public would have been grateful for it. The public are crying. The public are bleeding in the streets, because he failed to act. Gross negligence, is all I can say.
Make use of these extremely effective and well-trained officers. They are some of the best trained officers in Australia and they will not let this community down. They have a passion to protect it. They will go and deliver. Do not leave them in mothballs. Do not leave it for the big incident that may one day occur, because I say, today is the big incident, where it is not safe to walk Palmerston streets. It is not safe to walk the mall by yourself in Alice Springs. It is apparently not safe to go to Casuarina.
I have seen some very interesting information that suggests it is far from safe, due to the size of the gangs we have. It is foolish for people to deny that these little gangs exist. We have the intelligence data on them and they are extremely huge. They put our organised crime gangs to shame. If we do not act now and decisively, with highly trained officers, we will only end up with turf wars. If you look at the graffiti on some of the street corners, you are already talking about turf wars. You are talking about the tags of the Wagaman Boys and various other names - that I do not really want to give credit to - going out to Palmerston and the Palmerston ones going into Casuarina.
If you do not take action you will have turf wars. There are going to be 10- to 18-year-old kids wandering around with machetes, dragging people out of their cars – oops, that happened this week, did it not? People dragged out of their cars and bashed - it is already happening. Take the action now. Put the members who need to be on the road, right now. Make the call; have it happen tomorrow. Do not wait to put together your task force, because that is one day too many and anyone that gets injured in the meantime, should consider asking that same question.
You have your other support network - the dog squad. As far as I know, and maybe the Chief Minister can tell me otherwise, they still have not been given the authority, as general purpose trained dog handlers, to go out on the road, hunt down the criminals, and make our streets safer. If not, why not? I ask the Chief Minister to find out. They were trained many months ago and are still sitting there. What is the hold up? Why has it taken so long to put such a valuable asset on the streets, where we can make proper use of them? It is unbelievable.
I cannot believe that we are at this stage, when I gave 2 months pre-warning to take action. It is absolute neglect. It shows the mentality of people, standing around like a herd of sheep, with no real key direction and with no knowledge of what they need to do. Baa baa black sheep. If we forget about it, maybe it will not happen. It has happened and it is shameful that the Territory has come to the time when people are in such fear. It is a fungal growth, which has been festering and growing, and is now out of control. You do not have a clue how to fix it because you will not take the action that needs to be taken; action that is tough but fair and it needs to happen, now.
I am left with this question: is this minister, the minister of Police, capable? He has had two goes at it and he still does not get it right. Which of the two are responsible for the crime crisis we now have: the commissioner or the minister? I am sure the public will make its own choice in due time. I hope the minister for Police steps up to the ball game. We do not have time to wait. Those people who have been in hospital, with teeth knocked out, their gums and their cheeks ripped apart, and their livelihoods destroyed. Their families are asking why. Daddy just went to work and he got beaten near to death. Mummy just wanted a cup of tea; she wanted to buy some milk from the shops. It is not safe.
The minister for Police must step up and take 100% action; not a little, not wait until the end of the week to get people together - take action. Let the TRS out there; they have the ability to deal with it. Make it happen tomorrow night - make this town safe.
I urge for this to happen, because the public are the ones who really matter.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for the opportunity to speak on this matter. It allows me to highlight the many good things that this government has done, where it has shown leadership. We have grown and equipped the police to do their job, which makes our community safer.
Over the last seven years the Labor government has set three clear priorities. One, increasing the resources available to police, especially by increasing police numbers; two, bolstering legislation police have at their disposal to do their job; and three, improving the capital resources of the police with new technology and equipment, new police stations and new communications. There are more cops, stronger powers and better tools.
This is what has informed our decision making since our election in 2001 - that is clear leadership. The Chief Minister’s leadership, as Police minister, was critical in establishing those goals and delivering significant investments to grow our police force and increase its capability to do the job.
The Chief Minister has held the Police portfolio for the majority of our three terms. His leadership has been instrumental in delivering a record budget to police this financial year. We have increased the budget allocation to NT Police, Fire, and Emergency Services to a record $247m. This is an increase of 81% since 2001. More police was the first priority I mentioned. I thank the Chief Minister for providing me with the following figures from the police. As at 31 October 2008 there were 285 more Police Constables and above, ACPOs, and Police Auxiliaries than in 2003. If we add the number of recruits in training, the total uniformed force is 1273. We understand the importance of the uniform to high visibility policing. That is why we are delivering even more police to our suburbs and shopping centres through the Safer Streets and Police Beats initiatives.
From a local member’s perspective, often the most important thing a police officer does is simply to be seen on the beat doing their job. This was the message I heard very clearly from the people I spoke with in Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park. A strong police force, with strong public presence, gives people greater confidence to enjoy themselves in public, to go about their business and to make the Territory their home. A stronger police force, with strong public presence, has been our policy for seven years.
We have a plan for a Police Beats initiative, which will deliver 20 more police and 10 more Police Auxiliaries to be based at five shopping centres. The first Police Beat in Casuarina Square is on track to open in December this year. The opposition opposed the Police Beats initiative, which includes one to be established in Parap. I believe it is important to show leadership as a local member on local issues. That is why I argued for a Police Beat in Parap.
From every conversation I have had with constituents, the CLP are clearly out of step with the community on Police Beats. Our plan for Police Beats recognises the importance of shopping centres. In my electorate, we have three popular shopping villages: Fannie Bay; Stuart Park and Parap. They are places where locals and tourists like to go. We want to make them even better. A Police Beat will be established in Parap. It will also service Fannie Bay and Stuart Park. This initiative will establish a police shopfront at Parap, which will be used as a base for two constables per shift, to patrol the locality, engaging with the shoppers, shop owners, local residents, and showing the police uniform, to increase community confidence and safety. A Police Auxiliary will remain at the shopfront, coordinating their efforts, and ensuring the shopfront remains accessible, while the constables are out on the beat. The Police Beat will operate at the times a police presence is most needed. Our plan, to increase the police presence and police visibility throughout the Territory, will increase the police presence in Fannie Bay, Stuart Park and Parap, and will also reduce response times.
My electorate has had a long-term problem with antisocial behaviour. It is a problem that our government is tackling in a number of ways. The new First Response Patrols have started and also the Night Patrols, run by the Larrakia Nation. Their job is made easier with a dedicated antisocial behaviour reporting line.
We also have a plan for Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park for better public housing and this will take the pressure of antisocial behaviour hot-spots. As a local member, it is important to show leadership on local issues. That is why we have a plan for public housing in my electorate - a plan that will deliver better public housing, a better living environment for all tenants, neighbours and businesses.
The Wirrina Flats, the units on the corner of Gregory Street and Parap Road, next to the Parap Shopping Village, will see the first mixed public-private housing development - a development with an affordable housing component, which will start next year. The opposition opposed this development. In July, the Opposition Leader said the decision to redevelop public housing in Parap was a slap in the face to residents and was not credible policy. We have a plan for better public housing.
Madam Speaker, the second key point was for stronger powers - the Attorney-General will address that. The third key point is better tools for police. We delivered four mobile police stations, one each for Katherine and Alice, and two for Darwin. We delivered new and improved boats, NT Police Force coastal vessels for operations such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement and more; a new larger and faster police plane for Central Australia; and we introduced red light cameras as part of a comprehensive road safety strategy.
We are currently establishing CCTV networks across Darwin, Casuarina and Palmerston - they will be put in Parap later - to support frontline policing. The request for tender closes at the end of December and they should be operational by June next year. I understand that we are also providing just over $1m to the Alice Springs Town Council to expand its CCTV network and $200 000 each year for monitoring.
Members will notice the construction work happening in Dripstone Road. We are building a new police station at Casuarina, to provide state-of-the-art facilities for police and for the public.
I am proud to be a part of a government which is demonstrating effective leadership by delivering police the funding, resources, equipment and laws they need to do their job, and the police are leading the way in pursuing criminals and bringing them to justice. They are reacting quickly to serious incidents and they get their man, or woman. The clean up rates, at well over 80%, are second to none.
Madam Speaker, the NT Police have a hard job to do, often in difficult circumstances. They have my support, and I value the work they are doing to make our community safer.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51. I also remind you that this is the opposition’s MPI and it is probably worthwhile listening to the contributions.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I remember the days when a police officer kicked you up the bum for being a scallywag, or worse, threatened to take you home to your father to sort you out.
Before you get the wrong idea, I can never remember my own father having to lay a hand on me, but the lessons he taught me about love, respect for myself, our family, our neighbours, and our community, will live long in my heart. These same lessons are being taught today to my own children. Am I the best Dad in the world? No, absolutely not, and I would never attest to that, as I have made some monumental mistakes in my life. But did I learn a lesson? Yes, I most certainly did, and I am absolutely positive my own children will make their mistakes as they find their way in life. Each day, I try to instil love, respect, discipline and a sense of community pride in each of my children. By doing that, they will know what is right and wrong, and what is good and what is bad, and if they do make a mistake, at least I have the knowledge that they know in their hearts what is right and wrong, and the future decisions they make will be influenced through that knowledge.
Good parenting is the absolute minimum requirement if we are to provide a solid foundation. Sadly, I believe that many parents today, either do not give a damn, or through the evolution of the welfare mentality, have evolved into a ‘to hell with society’ mentality. Forgetting that it is this society that provides for them and that without the hard work of men and women of the Northern Territory, they would not have the luxuries of welfare and government funded housing, or the luxury of taking no responsibility for themselves or our community.
In recent times, I have become increasingly concerned about our society; its direction and a severe lack of respect for our community by many who choose to call the Territory their home. Our residents are seriously concerned about law and order issues.
Today is White Ribbon day, a day that is intended to highlight a tragic reality of our society and, hopefully, goes some way to eliminate violence against women. Sadly, over the years, many of these young thugs on our streets today have perhaps seen this type of violence firsthand, and one could ponder on this point: what chance do they have if, within their own families, they are exposed to this environment and they consider or learn that this behaviour is acceptable? What chance do they have if their own fathers demonstrate this abuse and that is their only role model in life?
I recall being in a shopping centre when a couple of young kids came running down from a local department store, holding something and then showing it to an older man, bragging that they had just stolen it. To my absolute surprise, the young boy referred to the man as dad, and further, to my absolute disgust, the father applauded the boy and then told him to see if he could get another one. I was horrified and I thought to myself there and then, we have lost. If this is the type of direction some parents are providing their own children, society’s very own foundation has developed a serious flaw.
I also recall visiting a primary school, where there was a group of students who, because of their behaviour, are not allowed in mainstream classes. They are removed because they cannot be controlled in the classroom or the playground and some rarely turn up to school at all. I praise the school for what they are trying to achieve by providing a stimulating environment for these young kids. Our visit coincided with them preparing a lunch for themselves and their coordinators. Taking the time and talking with these boys, and then suggesting they should invite us back again for lunch, must have struck a chord, as they were all excited that we might come back and visit them. What touched me was when one boy grabbed my hand, looked up at me and made me promise that I would come back. I thought long and hard about that moment, and felt a level of connection and figured this boy was screaming out for attention, someone to listen and someone to provide leadership in his young life.
I hate the term, ‘whole-of-government approach’. However, until this government, and the federal government, takes the bull by the horns, so to speak, we cannot win this battle. We must consider that whatever we have done, whatever the policy has been, has got us into the position we are right now; and this position is not acceptable by any standards. If we can at least agree on this point alone and appreciate that past practices, policies, and approaches have failed, we must change direction and this direction must be a whole-of-government approach.
This must include introducing a carrot-and-stick approach to welfare, Territory Housing, education, and most importantly, reform. Until we can appreciate all of this, we cannot move to fully address the issues facing our community today. The good majority of Palmerston residents are decent people who care about our home and our community. However, we are currently being held to ransom by a few young thugs who are terrorising our neighbourhoods. No matter what side of politics we come from, we should be focused on improving the lives of Territorians by providing good governance for everyone.
Sadly, I do not think we are doing all we can to resolve some of these issues. Quite frankly, Territorians have had enough. While I could recount many horrific stories, the following is one example provided in a letter from a concerned mother. I will read it, as it was also sent to the Chief Minister, and provided ample forewarning to what occurred on the weekend:
- As a law-abiding taxpaying citizen of Darwin, I am really concerned about the local safety issues in Palmerston and around Darwin. My son and his friend were recently
attacked by a gang of youths aged between 13 and 17. Whilst they were walking from Cazalys to the Oasis Shopping Centre to hire a taxi, the group of youths harassed
them for cigarettes and when my son refused, he and his friend were attacked and hit over the head with bottles and had a shopping trolley rammed into his head.
I often see this group of kids late at night when I drive home from Chung Wah Terrace after working on a Friday night from Casuarina. In fact one night I drove slowly past
them to see what they were up to and I saw them scaling someone’s fence and climbing back over again. I turned around and drove back to the Palmerston Police Station
and reported it. However, as I was driving past them, they hurled abuse at me and told me to (explicit word) off and who do I think I was a (explicit word) detective.
These youths had no fear and I was glad I was in the car and not a person walking down the street. In this case, they were Aboriginal kids and I am not racist. I have worked
and still work with Aboriginal people and have the utmost respect for them, so long as they are law-abiding and do the right thing. What the hell is going on with the police force
in this town? I never see any patrol cars. You would think that there would be a regular patrol car, especially around the shopping centres and theatres late at night, especially
when I see parents and children coming out of the picture theatres.
How many attacks and injuries will it take before something is done about it? Why does it take 40 minutes for police to respond to an incident which happened in the Oasis
Shopping Centre when the police station is 200 metres down the road? I want something done about it NOW before these kids get much older. I do not want to see Darwin
become another town similar to those towns in South Africa where everyone has to lock and bolt their doors at night. And have barbed wire around their property in order
to feel safe.
What are you doing about it, Paul? And do not give me the answer that you are employing 200 more police officers because I have heard that due to natural attrition, these
people only replace those who have already left. Therefore, the numbers will remain the same. And if and when the offenders are arrested, what consequences will they
face? Be sent to a juvenile detention centre where they get properly fed three meals a day and their clothes are washed and ironed and receive more loving care than
obviously they get at home? To go back inside and receive their luxury items again? What kind of correction is that?
It is time to stop pampering these up and coming little criminals before it is too late and they grow up and cause bigger problems. It is all very well to open up new suburbs
and new schools but you need to address the security and antisocial issues first; otherwise no one will want to live here.
Yours sincerely,
Resident of Rosebery.
I recall what I said in my maiden speech, that government needs to deliver policies that make the perpetrators reflect upon their actions, so that the impulses would be curtailed into the future. I sincerely believe that people should be made responsible for their actions and part of that process should be a mechanism to make a person consider those actions. Again, I refer to that horrible term ‘whole-of-government approach’, but I believe the only true way to resolve the type of social issues our communities face, is to involve a wider group and ensure we do not look at these wider community issues in isolation; not treat them as an individual problem, but to take a holistic approach, by reviewing the link between welfare, public housing, education, and employment.
Until we can address this issue, through an amalgamated approach, where we can improve education outcomes for children, lift the standard required within public housing, instil a work ethic within the long-term unemployed, provide real penalties for those who commit crimes and ensure those penalties provide life-changing opportunities, we are never going to sufficiently address the issue of young street criminals and change their attitudes towards the wider community. We are never going to be able to provide them with the role models within their own families they need so much and rightly deserve.
We have a real opportunity and I do not for one moment suggest it will be easy. But the government needs to make some hard decisions. The government needs to provide some tough love for many of these young children, their older siblings and their parents. Only when the government can agree to stop listening to the do-gooders, minority groups and some social workers, whose intentions are perhaps honourable but have failed to protect the wider community, can we go about constructing a better future for everyone. A future where, once again, families can walk our streets without fear of young thugs running amok and treating our streets as if they are part of their own gangland territory; where older Territorians can feel safe leaving their homes to do a little shopping, without the fear of being assaulted or returning to their homes to find that they have been trashed; and where children can play in our parks, without the fear of cutting their feet on broken glass from antisocial behaviour or being assaulted by young thugs.
Every young child needs a leader in their life, needs the positive influence a good parent or good role model can provide. Everyone should treat life as a journey; a journey of discovery, like this slab of rock that I keep, which says: ‘Seize the day, look out every window, live your dreams, dwell in possibilities and life is a journey.’ In my opinion, most of these problems today revolve around respect: respect for oneself, respect for others, and respect for the community we live in. Respect can be earned and respect can be instilled into a young person, but it will take real leadership and an absolute commitment, to change direction and not just a willingness to continue to throw money at programs that have failed to produce real outcomes for many years. It is time to change direction - Territorians deserve it.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for the opportunity to outline the strong leadership this government has shown since 2001 to reduce violent crime and crime in general in the Northern Territory.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest and respect when the member for Drysdale was speaking. I ask members of the opposition to extend the same courtesy to me.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51, regarding no interruptions.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, they talk about respect, manners, courtesy, and civility, but they do not demonstrate it in this place ...
Mr Conlan: Just get on with it, you only have 15 minutes.
Dr BURNS: See what I mean?
We have a number of approaches to tackling this problem. If I could outline from the start, there is a real danger here of labelling every young person as being a miscreant, a violent offender, or a no-gooder. The majority of young people I know are good kids. However, there is no doubt, as the Chief Minister outlined today, that there is an element - and a very bad element - at large, and they are causing many problems. I am very glad, as we heard today, that there have been six arrests in relation to the matters in Palmerston. Those people will face the courts.
This is a government, as I will outline, that has introduced a number of legislative reforms to address this issue: targeting repeat offenders and violent gangs through tough new laws; introducing the ground-breaking family responsibility scheme, to hold parents responsible for their children’s behaviour; setting up youth rehabilitation camps in the Top End and Central Australia, which have already taken a large number of wayward kids and got them back on track; recognising and addressing the alcohol-related harm, through region-by-region plans to restrict supply; opening hours and product restrictions; ID and permit systems; and taking the important step to ensure every Territorian has an obligation to report domestic violence which, tragically, makes up over half of all reported assaults in the Northern Territory.
Members opposite talked about parents and families and the breakdown of law and order, and the problems that are facing us as a society. I believe that we are living in a increasingly violent society, and there are many reasons for that. It is not just a problem faced by the Territory; it is a problem being faced right across Australia and, indeed, the world. There is no doubt that changing drug and alcohol use plays a role in this. The increased use of amphetamines is, no doubt, something that fuels much of the violence that occurs.
As I have said before, rap music - not only the lyrics but the attitudes - appeals to a certain group of adolescents and they are mimicking that behaviour – violent, abusive behaviour. That is undermining the very social fabric of our society. How we address that issue is difficult, but I have no doubt that it is challenge for our community. We make the tough decisions and have shown the leadership necessary to tackle violent crime.
For those members who are new in this Assembly, there have been a number of reforms undertaken in Territory criminal law since 2001. Our message is: violent crime will not be tolerated. As I discussed in Question Time, the government is justifiably proud of the major steps that it has taken, within the first 100 days, to bring forward reforms in sentencing and bail laws. Under legislation just passed, violent criminals guilty of serious assaults, will have to face a period of actual imprisonment. The act ensures that a court must impose a period of actual imprisonment for adult offenders who have committed a serious violent assault causing harm, even if the offender does not have a prior conviction - no second chances - unlike what the opposition was proposing during the election campaign.
Repeat violent offenders will find it more difficult to get bail and there will be a presumption against bail that applies to adults and youths charged with a serious violent offence, who have been found guilty of a serious violent offence in the past five years. If a defendant manages to obtain bail, if they make the slightest breach, it must be revoked. These are clear, simple, and strong laws. Everyone knows where they stand: if you have a prior conviction for a serious violent offence in the last five years and you get charged again, there will be a presumption that you will find yourself in remand. If you do get bail, you will have to be on your best behaviour, otherwise there is no choice in the matter, if you breach your bail conditions you will go inside. Juveniles now have a set number of chances through diversion. If they keep on committing minor offences, they will be charged and go before the court – no revolving door of diversion.
It is evident to me that we have gaols overflowing with prisoners. There are more and more prisoners being sentenced in the Northern Territory - we have about 3 times the imprisonment rate of the rest of Australia, there is no doubt about that. People are also being sent down for longer. Basically, from what the Chief Minister said, it is very important that we are tough on crime. We have taken steps and I believe it is ridiculous for anyone else to pretend otherwise. Those idiots who think it is amusing to hurl rocks at vehicles - that was something that was mentioned this evening - without any thought of the severe injuries that they could cause, now face a specific offence and severe penalties.
We have also brought in drink spiking laws and reversed the presumption of bail for serious sexual offences. Prior to the members’ arrival in this Assembly, government brought forward a comprehensive package to hit gangs at every level, including anti-loitering laws, to keep juveniles from congregating in certain hot spots; a specific violent disorder offence for people causing fear and disruption in their communities; and consorting offences, to stop organised criminal gang members contacting each other. The Bail Act was also amended to empower the courts to prohibit an alleged offender’s contact with known associates or going to certain places.
As I mentioned earlier this year, until the end of 2007, there were 173 apprehensions relating to these new gang offences. Of these, 95%, or 164, proceeded to court and 83% were convicted. The Department of Justice is currently finalising updated figures, and I am confident this level of success will be shown to have continued.
I was very interested in the comments by the member for Drysdale. As a former police officer, I thought that you would have known about and applauded these legislative reforms and results. Instead, I heard someone who is very critical of the Police Commissioner, Mr Paul White.
Mr Bohlin: You have that right.
Dr BURNS: After the 2001 election, when Paul White was appointed, the CLP and Denis Burke tried to savage Paul White, because they had their own candidate, Mr Valentin, a CLP member, who they wanted to head up the police force. It was obvious. They went into it in Question Time; it was brimming with invective, the sort of stuff that Denis Burke came out with on the floor of this parliament.
I do not believe it does the member for Drysdale any credit to be sledging off, almost at a personal level, with the commissioner. I can see now why the commissioner has some difficulties in there because, obviously, there is a renegade group, probably the member for Drysdale was part of it, trying to undermine the Commissioner of Police. I believe that is entirely reprehensible. The Hansard record will show exactly what the member for Drysdale said. He needs to have a good hard look at himself. He also needs to read the Police Administration Act, because he is demonstrating a lack of understanding of the act, the role of the minister, and the role of the commissioner in directing operations. He talked about how the minister should be saying, okay boys, let the dogs off the chain.
Mr Bohlin: The minister for Police made his own comments yesterday in the media.
Dr BURNS: Well, these are decisions for the commissioner.
Mr Bohlin: Did you fail to listen to that?
Dr BURNS: I listened very carefully to what you had to say, member for Drysdale, and I really think you need to read the Police Administration Act, particularly in relation to the respective roles of the commissioner and the minister.
The government also recognises that alcohol is a major driver of violence in our community and it is taking decisive and proactive steps to drive down alcohol consumption. In 2007-08, the total volume of wholesale supplied pure alcohol in the NT was 3.23 million litres, 17.1 litres of pure alcohol per person, 70% higher than the national figure. That is the challenge we face, because we know that alcohol and also amphetamine-like drugs are driving much of the crime in the Northern Territory.
The government has been criticised for what it has done in Alice Springs and Katherine and elsewhere, but it has had a go. People are critical of the dry town legislation and some of the other measures in Alice Springs. Let us not forget that this government passed the dry town legislation, which was implemented at the request of the council in Alice Springs.
The government has tried many things and I would be the first to say that not all of those things are working. I have given an undertaking, through an independent review the government has commissioned, that if it is demonstrated that things are not working - they will go; if things need to be fine-tuned - we will do that; and if there are any new or useful suggestions - we will go along with that. The opposition are always very critical and negative. Why are you not doing something? And as soon as the government takes steps and implements strategies, the opposition are immediately saying it is not working, take it away. The government will look at this in an objective way and will take action on the basis of an independent report.
We also implemented an alcohol court, and I believe, in spite of some of the misleading information that is being put out by some, it has been successful, as it has reached the targets that were originally set. At last count, I believe there are about 153 people who have been through the alcohol court. Admittedly, there have not been many prohibition orders, but there have been many intervention orders through the alcohol court. I have acknowledged that we need to do more. Police have made some suggestions to magistrates about how alcohol courts might function better and, the government will be bringing forward those changes, as well as other changes, that I have foreshadowed, for people who might not be interacting with the criminal justice system, but are a problem to themselves and a problem to the community through alcohol. We are prepared to take further steps in that regard.
We are also introducing legislation in relation to domestic violence and I will not pre-empt that debate, but we are taking very strong measures that really show what government thinks about domestic violence - it has to stop. There has to be a change in attitude in our community so that people do report domestic violence.
I have acknowledged that violent crime has increased in the Northern Territory over the past four years. I have always acknowledged that, year-on-year. I believe there are a number of reasons for that. There has been a natural increase in violent crime. There are also different ways that police have treated violent crime, where police, as I understand it, through the PROMIS system, are obligated to report or record violent crime if there is sufficient evidence, irrespective of the person who is the victim or what they want to do with the particular complaint. There has been a change in reporting also.
We do have challenges; I am the first to acknowledge that. I compliment police for the work that they do. I am alarmed at some of the things that the member for Drysdale has said tonight. I believe they have been quite intemperate and I believe he needs to be more constructive about it. Police are there, in contrast to the letter that was read out by the member for Brennan, there are 200 extra police in our police force, over and above natural attrition. This is the line that the Opposition has been running for a long time. We have increased the numbers in the Northern Territory Police Force, we are going to increase them further and we are going to work with police to get an outcome. We are going to work with the community. We recognise our challenges, but this is a government that has taken bold action on a whole range of fronts and will continue to do so.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am very keen to speak on this matter of public importance. It has been very interesting listening to the minister for Justice. It just goes to show why he is one of the top bananas in this government.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER: He is not to be outdone by anyone, because irrespective of all the evidence out there, he has the ability to cut straight through there, ignore all that and just keep running the spin. He is absolutely marvellous at it and, minister, I take my hat off to you, because you have broken new records in ignoring the realities. Every day, no matter what day of the week it is, for the last few years or so, if you pick up the newspaper or turn on the telly, there is evidence of crime. We know there has been an 87% increase in violent crime - we read the stories constantly. Horror stories from all over the Territory, about people suffering under lawlessness and crime that continually seems to rise.
Yet, minister, you seem to have that uncanny knack of just being able to ignore all that evidence and cut straight through, with the government line - ignoring the realities and all the advice that you receive but just cutting through with that message. I do not know whether it hits home with many people but the fact is, you do it very well. You have at least convinced yourself, I am sure, that crime is not a problem here. I note that every time you stand up to speak about crime, it is in relation to rap music and Eminem and what about MC Hammer and all of the other dreadful influences on young people in relation to rap music. As far as causes of crime, I am not too sure, minister, whether it is rap music.
Mr Elferink: I agree with him. Rap music is a crime.
Mr TOLLNER: I have young kids aged 10 and 11 and they listen to rap music; they are hooked on it actually. It does sort of get your ear, but I do not know whether it is a great driver of crime. Minister, you do a good job of cutting through and getting that message out there, that one of the things we have to do is crack down on rap music. It is probably something for the minister of Education to take on board, because kids these days at schools with their mobile phones and the like, can easily download this sort of music which drives kids wild, as the minister knows, and starts them on a life of crime. You start at rap music, then you are into alcohol, drugs, stealing motorbikes, breaking into houses and the crime cycle begins. Minister, you have done a great job.
I have been right across Darwin and Palmerston doing crime forums in the years when I was federal member. I am sure you even turned up to a couple of those forums around the community. I know you did. You were at the Nightcliff Sports Club for one of them, minister, and you insisted on speaking at that one, defending the government. You did an amazing job cutting through all the concerns they were raising, you just cut through with the hocus pocus on police numbers and the like, completely ignoring their concerns. I went around most of Darwin and Palmerston area, throughout the six years that I was in the position, holding law and order forums with a whole range of different groups, Neighbourhood Watch. Neighbourhood Watch were not saying, goodness, Labor is in office, they have now solved the crime problem.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: No, they were not sitting there saying now Labor has solved the crime problem. No. The people in Palmerston, who I went and saw and talked to on a number of occasions - the Leader of the Opposition was at one of those crime forums. We held one in Malak and the Treasurer turned up to the crime forum. I am sure that there are many members of this Chamber who turned up to crime forums that I convened, at one stage or another. People were coming to them. I believe the one at Malak had somewhere around 150 people. The one you were at, at Nightcliff Sports Club, there was somewhere around 20 to 30 people ...
Dr Burns: Yes, half of them CLP members.
Mr TOLLNER: There you go again; ‘most of them were CLP members’. I have to tell you, minister - not that it will matter to your thrust and your drive - that they were not CLP members. There were a handful of them, no doubt about it, but the vast majority of them were not CLP members. It was the first time I had ever seen the vast majority of them at this particular crime forum.
The reason they turned up was that they were incensed at the lack of action that government was taking. It was more about the spin and the rhetoric, than actually doing anything real on the ground and making things happen. We see it time and time again. It is the rhetoric that matters; it is the glossy brochures that matter. It is not the results at the end of the day that matter to this government; it is the message that gets out that is all important. That is really the driver of this government, and that is why I say, minister, it is quite easy to see why you are the top dog in the ministerial line-up, because it is not about the reality, it is about the message that is getting out there.
We heard a couple of very good presentations tonight in relation to this matter of public importance, which is incredibly important. As far as I am concerned - and I am sure for many members of this Chamber from both sides – this was one of those pivotal issues in the last Territory election campaign, and has been in many others gone by. It was certainly a big issue in the last federal election campaign.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please pause. Opposition members, if you wish to have a private conversation, can you do it elsewhere? I am having a lot of trouble hearing the member for Fong Lim ...
Mr Tollner: I can certainly speak up, Madam Speaker, if you would like.
Madam SPEAKER: No, I prefer that the honourable members take their private conversation elsewhere, thank you. Order! Member for Fong Lim, you may continue.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I have lost my train of thought. The point I was making is that so many elections in the past have revolved around the issue of law and order. The last one was a case in point. I believe that one of the reasons the Labor Party copped such a belting was because of their lack of focus on that main issue which concerned Territorians - the breakdown of law and order; that our parks are plagued by drunks; that people have trouble going shopping in the northern suburbs because of fear of youth gangs; that cars were being stolen and trashed; that there are hoons on the streets; that houses were being broken into; and that we have violent crime exploding with an 87% increase.
These things are happening all the time around us, and people are begging for something to be done about it. What this government does is run the line: we have so many extra police, we put so much money out there. Ultimately, what is happening? Nothing. People are becoming more and more frustrated.
Since I have been in this position, as the member for Fong Lim, I have received numerous complaints from people around my electorate who are concerned at crime and antisocial behaviour, and there does not seem to be an adequate response at all.
I note that the government has promised a police post in Bagot. The impression I had was that it would be immediate. I have found out, from the Chief Minister’s statement, that it will be another 3 years before there is a police presence in Bagot. The people in Bagot deserve some sort of respite from the antisocial behaviour that happens there. They have the right, as citizens of the Northern Territory, to expect some sort of peace in their community, but it seems that community is not as important as other communities.
They have identified a major problem, to the point where they need a police station inside Bagot, but it is going to be another 3 years before this government does anything about it. It will be interesting to see in 3 years time whether anything is done about it. You can bet your bottom dollar that for the next 3 years, we are going to hear abut the police station in Bagot, exactly like we have heard about the two new schools that are being built in Palmerston, one has 600 students and the other one has 800 students. It just goes on and on.
As I always say: do not listen to what they say, look at what they do.
Mr Conlan: The oncology unit.
Mr TOLLNER: Have a look at what they do. My good friend here, the member for Greatorex, reminds me of the oncology unit – that was promised back in 2001, and what happened? It was an election commitment by Labor that they would build an oncology unit. Then they went in to their mini-budget, and they budgeted $14m for an oncology unit. They did not need any help from anyone. They were going to do it. Then somewhere along the line, that fell off the radar. It just did not happen and then slowly the rhetoric changed. They could not do it without any help. After so many years of procrastination, people in the federal government got so sick of hearing about this thing and nothing was being done about it, that finally the federal government stepped in and said, we will assist you. It originally committed $13m, and I believe the whole amount came out at about $35m, after 10 years of ongoing funding. The only thing the Territory government committed to that plan was $1m, plus the land, $1m over 10 years.
This has come from something that the government promised back in 2001, to the point where the federal government has stepped in and provided the lion’s share of the funding. It was supposed to be started ages ago. There was a promise that it would be started in October, I do not think the first sod has been turned …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is quite irrelevant here. This is not what the MPI is about - it is basically irrelevant. He is talking about the oncology unit and the funding, but he was supposed to be talking about crime, addressing the rise in crime.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to keep it much closer to the topic, which is, of course, the opposition’s MPI.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker. For the knowledge of the members, I will read it out – ‘the impact of rising crime on Territorians and the lacklustre leadership and action by the Territory government to address rising crime’. So there is relevance …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: This is a government that is not so interested in results; it is a government that is more interested in saving its own hide electorally and putting out the message there to the public that it is doing something. This minister, the minister for Justice, is an A grade performer, he has done a fantastic job. He had a whole range of evidence and he just managed to cut through with government spin and well done minister, unfortunately you have failed Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I was not going to jump up and talk tonight but I thought it was a very important issue so I will have a chat. Like the member for Johnston, I also commend the police force and the hard work that they do. I recognise that hard work and it is very trying circumstances that the police operate in, in the Northern Territory. I support the comments that the member for Fong Lim has made about the policing efforts and the concerns he has about the new police stalls or shopfronts.
I take note of much of the information raised about the changes that have been made since 2001. The member for Johnston was very keen to point out to the new members, as he likes to call us, the things that they have done since 2001 and how they have changed the world and how all these important things have happened in the different legislation. I did not take notes of all the different legislation points that he changed but the key thing that I kept thinking, as he said how good a job they have actually done, is that since the new legislation has come into power, since this government has been in power since 2001, albeit narrowly in 2008, more people are getting locked up. Three and half times the prison population compared to the rest of Australia, I believe you said. We have seen a 14% increase in the prison population in the last three years. Our jails are full, you have said that, and that is where I commend the police for doing a good job.
I also start to wonder, if all these people are getting locked up, why is crime still so bad? Why is crime still at an 83% increase from when you came in? That is because you have not actually got the competence, grasp or the control of what the real issues are. You are trying to deal with law and order circumstances at the end point and that is when the crime has been committed. You have not got the resources on the ground to be able to catch the people in the first place and that is why we are seeing these incidents at Palmerston, Alice Springs, Darwin and across the Territory.
However, you are not dealing with the true heart of the matter as to why these crimes are being committed in the first place. I am not a soft leftie, but I understand the circumstances that get to point of how these people commit crimes in the first place. You are not dealing with the parents. You spoke earlier today about how you are going to get tough on parents. I remember when those television advertisements came out 10 months ago, about how you are going to start taking people’s televisions if the children were doing something wrong and yet you tell us you have not taken any televisions. That was the big thing. If the kids do something wrong, we are going to take your television.
A member: How many televisions did they take?
Mr GILES: They have not taken one.
You have not even taken action on it. While you continue to put more people in gaols and the gaols are full, the crime is still escalating. You are trying to say it is about alcohol and I understand the issues of alcohol, but instead of dealing with the problem of chronic alcoholism in our community and treating alcoholism as a disease, you wait until the crime is committed and then try to lock more people up. Because you have not got enough police on the street you are not locking people up and the crimes are being committed. You have to treat alcoholism as a disease and that will lower the crime rate. That is sensible to me.
We know that you have to get kids to school, because kids who do not go to school will more than likely be the ones that end up in the prison system. I know that you talk about trying to do things in education and that is important and we support you on education. Kids have to get to school and I will agree with that 100%. But these are some of the upstream factors that will slowly stop people getting into the circumstances of the criminal justice system. You do not have enough police. We know you do not have enough police.
During Question Time today a story was put on the ABC website in Alice Springs, where the Chief Minister said:
- … that crime problems in Alice Springs are not serious enough to warrant a special police task force.
Presumably that is in relation to the Deputy Mayor’s recent call about the riot squad going to Alice Springs. The riot squad call is over the top, but when a few people get injured in Palmerston, albeit devastatingly, and you send a special task force there – when these things are happening in Alice Springs every night. They have been for a long time.
I do not talk the town down, but this press release goes on to say:
- Alice Springs Aldermen reacted angrily to news a police task force has been deployed in Palmerston to deal with youth crime.
Must be a little close to the north Darwin seats, I think. It continues:
- The council has decided to hire security guards to deal with the problem youth in the town CBD and says it will send the bill to the Territory government.
How good is that? We do not have enough police. We already know that the minister for Housing is not doing his job. So he has to send out security companies to deal with the crime issues across the Territory.
Now the town council has hire security guards to try to protect the streets because the police are not there. This is how serious this matter is. When you have a Territory government in charge of the police and now there are local governments who are engaging their own security companies. It is one department versus the other, in the case of the Territory government, to try to protect the people on the streets of Alice Springs and across the Territory. I am sure that spells something is wrong. And you still have no answer on how to reduce the numbers and the circumstances and the situations of the law and order in the first place.
You keep thinking it is about more police, yet you do not provide them. It is not about more police at all. Yes, we need more but it is not the sole solution. You are dealing with the end problem. It is about cause and effect. Get the people who are chronic alcoholics off the street and treat their alcoholism as a disease and the crime will go down. If you deal with the alcoholics, you will have change. You will not save every alcoholic but at least you will be able to try to save some people and you will get those people off the street, while you are trying to rehabilitate them. This government does not have a focus on that – they are playing spin politics.
They are taking a leaf out of the other jurisdictions across the country – wall-to-wall Labor governments, that spin it and spin it – without having any policy response. For seven years you have failed in the fundamentals and the outcome that we are seeing is more and more law and order, full gaols, not enough police to pick up the people on the street at night and people who are too scared to go out at night.
That is the fact. Until you start to go back to the basics and treat those people, take the kids off the street; take the alcoholics of the street and the crime will go down overnight. That is a simple message. If the kids are not being looked after by their parents and they are out on the street at night - do something about it. Make a tough decision. Crime will go down. If the alcoholics are on the street, fighting, rioting, smashing windows – whatever it might be that they are doing – stabbing people, taking them out of their cars - take them off the street. They do not have to go to the prisons. There are other ways that people can be dealt with.
Some of these kids have social and emotional issues, some have not had good leadership or have not been educated. Some have addictions to drugs or whatever. Some people even listen to 50 Cent and Puff Diddy, all that type of music. But you have to get to the causes behind the problems and until you do, your law and order will be out of control and we will stand here as an opposition and smash you all over the park, but you will still do nothing about it.
You have to take some intent into your policy. I know you do work underneath and you are trying to solve some issues, but it is not working. It is a bit late to play catch up in some of these areas, because you have failed so miserably.
I only wish the Country Liberals were in power, we would be able to do some of these things, because these are simple things.
It almost makes you cry when a constituent asks you to come out and they talk about some issues and you say, this is what it is about and if this happened and that happened, and all round the table there is a complete sense of logic about what needs to happen and they ask, why does it not happen? It is because the Reds are in government - Labor is there, they will not do these things. They will not commit to social change, regional development, stopping the urban drift, building more houses, or increasing police numbers in the Northern Territory. They will put out media releases. But when it comes time for tough decisions and making change, you are in government to govern.
You have to do that, otherwise we are in the same pathetic and appalling situation now, where things are at boiling point. Until you start to make those decisions, we will stand up and talk about law and order and your incompetence at it, until you make improvements. You can juggle the figures around however you like; you can pull statistics out and you can muck around, and you will see that you can make things look smaller or bigger - looking at the mirrors again.
However, the fact remains that people will not walk down the street. When the interstate visitors come to Alice Springs to launch the Outback Highway and they were assaulted in the mall after dinner; when the tourist walks down the street and is smacked around the head; and when people are getting pulled out of cars - this is not New York. This is the Northern Territory where people have this laid back lifestyle.
Madam Speaker, there is not much point in me smashing the government around the head for doing nothing again. They are not capable of coming up with new policy solutions and ideas about how to rectify some of these issues. I will just look forward to next time when I talk about law and order and how the government is doing nothing again.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, law and order has been spoken about every year I have been in parliament. It is …
A member: Your fault.
Mr WOOD: Some of it might be my fault. Maybe I have not tried hard enough to convince government that we should look at a more holistic approach to some of the issues that we raise. Talking about crime on the streets and how we can get criminals off the streets is only one aspect. It is an immediate reaction and gives peace to a community - there is no doubt about that - if you can remove the problem. However, as we know, recidivism in our prisons is very high. As soon as you release people from prison, many of them return, because of the same problems they had previously. I believe that people who commit violent crimes should be punished. But we also need to look at the reasons why people are in gaol, and we need to have early intervention and spend more money on preventative programs that will stop people entering the criminal system.
One is not going to be able to thoroughly debate the complex reasons why we have so many people in gaol in 15 minutes. No doubt, it is a mixture of alcohol; poor socioeconomic lifestyle, that many people in the Northern Territory live with, and that approximately 80% of people in our prisons are Indigenous. Many of those would come from the rural areas and from conditions of abuse of alcohol, overcrowded houses, low education, low incomes, social problems that drive people to do things that, perhaps if they had a better lifestyle, better education, better circumstances, they would not do.
It is not only associated with Aboriginal people. I was coming home late, 1.30 am from the Darwin Airport, and there was a non-Indigenous bloke lying in the middle of the road about 300 m from my place. He was drunk, lying in the middle of the road. When I rang up the police and said this fellow was lying in the road and he was in danger of being run over, the question that the person on the other end asked straightaway was: ‘Is he Indigenous?’ There is an automatic belief that someone lying in the middle of the road is not going to be non-Indigenous.
Many non-Indigenous people have problems associated with alcohol and violence. We know the figures for domestic violence are high and we know that much of that violence is because people are affected by alcohol. It does not mean they are all alcoholics; it means that they have abused alcohol and it has made them very brave people and they have done things that, perhaps on a sober day, they would not have done.
I believe we need to be looking at, and continuing to search for, the reasons why people are ending up in our prison system. Why are young people committing crimes, and they are not all young people? I believe in Palmerston, one of the people arrested was an adult. Why are we not helping people, in the way Will McGregor does, who was one of the finalists at the Australian of the Year Awards? I am not saying he does not get support, but it is people like this that we need to put more effort into. I will read from the Australian of the Year program, which said:
- Will McGregor began operating Bushmob from the back of a 4WD. The program takes marginalised young people out bush overnight to build their self esteem and respect for
each other. The participants tackle problems like alcohol and drug abuse, violence and suicide, and encourage each other to take control of their lives. Bushmob is an attempt
to break down welfare dependency, and this year, Will established the Bushmob Youth Residential Service, aimed at young people wanting to get their lives back on track
without the use of alcohol or drugs. The service provides 24 hour care, counselling, life skill development programs, health interventions, and promotes education,
training and good life choices. Individuals on the program get a support person and can stay for up to two months.
He has also set up an outreach team who visit young people and their families, listen to their concerns and offer support. The response to these unique programs has been so
overwhelming that the organisation has expanded dramatically. Will now manages a group of staff, volunteers and peer group mentors who have worked with thousands of young
people and their families in Central Australia. Will’s work is making a real difference in young people’s lives.
I believe we need to put more emphasis on trying to encourage these sorts of programs, perhaps even earlier into the primary school areas with younger kids. I have mentioned before that there have been experiments in Australia and overseas where teachers are trained to identify, within their classroom, children who appear to be at risk, so that specialists can come in and intervene at that stage, where they see a child who looks like they are going to head in a wrong direction, they are able to intervene and, with certain programs, hopefully, bring that child back into mainstream. The amount of money we have to spend on early intervention is quite small, compared to what we have to spend later on in life trying to rehabilitate people, the cost of putting people in prison, the cost of the violence which occurs because people have been affected by alcohol. If we can intervene earlier with programs like Will McGregor’s, I believe is an approach that we should put more effort and publicity into.
I was always disappointed when the Wildman River program was closed down, and I do laugh a little. The minister said in one of his speeches that the government had invested in three programs. Well, that is not quite right. They may have invested in two programs that were already running. They were private programs, one on the other side of Darwin Harbour and one in Batchelor. The program they have set up is Hamilton Downs, and I applaud the government for that. But you must realise that all the arguments used for opening up Hamilton Downs are very similar to the arguments I used for the retention of Wildman River, and that does not exist any more. We need to put far more effort into those sorts of youth camps.
We also need to find solutions for many of these young people who are on our street. I agree with the member for Braitling, that gaol is not always the answer. That does not mean people should not be punished, but I have argued for prison farms, for instance, as an alternative. I do not believe we should be locking all people up into a concrete block and throwing the key away. We should be looking at alternative forms of imprisonment and with young people, we should be making an effort.
We should be working with the Cattlemen’s Association to take these kids out bush, and separate them from their gang mates, because gangs are all about a couple of leaders who attract many other kids. If we can separate them for some time so they are not an influence on others, and put them to work out on communities, especially cattle stations, where they have to do some work and receive get some education at the same time. It might cost a bit of money, but it probably does not cost anywhere near the amount of money to try to stop these kids going back into the system and to give them a lifestyle where they can see a future.
The cattle industry is a very important industry. Live cattle exports is one of the major industries in the Northern Territory. Kids can get a future on cattle stations. If they can then take the next step and perhaps go back to school and become a more qualified person in agriculture and animal husbandry, there are even better futures for them. But we must give kids the opportunity. The reason I like kids to be sent out bush is a little similar to what Will McGregor is doing - he gives kids a chance to think about themselves.
If you have the right people to go with them, give kids time to clear their heads, to wonder and to analyse, when they have the time, and to ask: where am I going in life? You will not get that in Palmerston, if all you do every day is meet the same old rat bags that lead you up the garden path. You need to be taken away and you need the facilities to try to help you change your world around.
When you come back to places like Palmerston, the northern suburbs and Alice Springs, you need some people who will follow that up, who will encourage you to keep changing to find a more positive manner and way in your life. If you leave people alone when they come back from working on a cattle station, I am sure that they will get into the same problems again. So it needs follow-up.
I believe that we can talk about the political side of crime and the number of police on the streets, but it is also important to recognise that no one wants people getting bashed up, when they are just walking down the streets of Darwin and Palmerston, going shopping or walking home at night from a movie or something. That is not acceptable. We need to make sure that we have the resources to catch those people - there is no doubt about that.
However, if we look at that as an isolated debate, then I believe that we are far too narrow. We need to look at this more broadly. We need to talk to people like Will McGregor, people who have had experience with young people, and ask them: what do we do? It is easy for me to say, this is what we should do. A bloke like Will McGregor has the experience, he knows all the pitfalls, and he knows the successes and failures in the system. We should be working with people like him and have more Will McGregor’s, providing them with the finances and resources to expand these programs into other parts of the Territory.
We can discuss this tonight and I am sure we will be back in a few months time to discuss it again. I believe, because it is such an important area for all Territorians, that even though there is a lot of argy-bargy and it is always a good debate in parliament to talk about crime, in some ways we would be far better off if we could work together as a unit to try to find solutions, because these kids that are in trouble are worth saving.
It is easy to use them as political fodder and to try to gain votes in the community. However, our responsibility as parliamentarians is to find solutions to help these young people. We would use our resources in this parliament far better if we combined as a body to see whether we can achieve some changes, especially for these young people. It would be good if we cleared away some of the rhetoric, and went down to Alice Springs to talk to people like Will McGregor and see whether we could run similar programs throughout the Northern Territory.
There is no easy solution. We live in a society which, in many ways for many kids, does not seem to have any goals and many beliefs have disappeared. We have replaced that with consumerism, quick pleasure, and different types of music. I agree with the Member for Johnston regarding music, the type that I would not really be pleased having my kids listen to. Luckily mine are old enough to know that much of it is not particularly wonderful in developing good role models for young people. Even though there was some laughter about whether it caused crime, I believe it is part of a mix which does not help or encourage young people to move down positive paths.
Whilst I thank the member for Drysdale for his MPI, I believe we need to concentrate on a far broader approach to these issues. They are serious issues. If we believe in the next generation and that they are the ones who are going to be our leaders, we have to put in the time and effort to make sure they will have a chance to be that – our young leaders of the future.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased tonight to congratulate one of the schools in my electorate in their successful application for the Coles Junior Landcare School Garden grant. Berry Springs Primary School led by Tracey Leo - who is their Landcare Coordinator and on their school council - was recently awarded a grant of $1100. This will help the school and the Landcare group plan to replace the exotic plants around the school grounds with native ones. Introducing more native plants will mean their gardens will be more water efficient.
Grade 2 and Grade 3 classes at Berry Springs Primary School have already started work on their first garden which will be aimed at attracting birds and butterflies. The students in these classes are very excited by the project. Tracey said the kids have worked very hard weeding and preparing the garden by hand and even though it was very hot, hard and dirty work, everyone enjoyed every minute of it.
Berry Springs Primary School and the community have always tried to keep their school grounds free of chemicals. Consequently, students and volunteers hand weeded rather than used chemical sprays. I commend them for this. Congratulations to Tracey and everyone involved in making the application successful.
As we head into the end of the school year - and as with all members in here - my calendar is getting full with diary dates for presentations. I attended my first Year 12 presentation the other evening at Taminmin High School. Although this school is not in my electorate, many students from the electorate of Daly attend Taminmin Senior and Middle School. Congratulations to those Year 12 students who have finished school for 2008 and are heading into further education or the workforce during 2009.
My student of the month awards, given out during the last few months, at three of the smaller schools in my electorate went to Courtney Longmirr, Scott Jongmir, Richard Rankin and Caitlyn Rankin from the Woolianna School. At Emu Point they went to Cody Thomas, Darius Miller and Daisy Sams; and from Peppimenarti Stephen Thomas, Henry Kundu and Leeya Wilson.
There are 16 schools in my electorate and I extend my best wishes to all of the staff, students, school councils and everyone involved. I look forward to working with you again next year. To the students graduating from preschool and from the primary school into middle school and into senior school, congratulations to you. I wish everyone a safe school holidays and I hope to see many of you during 2009 school assemblies.
2008 was an extremely busy year and I could not have gotten through it without the many people who worked with me. I started 2008 in a new office and, very shortly after, as a new minister. There were the local government reforms, boundary changes and elections. At times I thought the year could not get any busier. There have been times when I did not say it out aloud, but I have appreciated everyone who has made my job a lot easier. As a team, we have had some very trying times with the recent outages, negotiations for EBAs, and setting up the new shires.
I acknowledge the support of staff in my office: Therla, Katie, Rebecca, and Brett. I also acknowledge the DLOs, Belinda and, recently, Peter Thornton. I also acknowledge Peter Wellings for all his support over the last 12 months and earlier. He has done a fabulous job, and has gone on to be given more challenging roles, all of which I know he will live up to.
I thank the staff of the Department of Local Government, Housing, and the OCPE for all their hard work, and also the staff of Power and Water. They do a great job. Obviously, there have been trying times recently. There is a great expectation from the public to perform at a higher level - one which I am sure we will reach.
Lastly, I acknowledge the great work of my electorate officer, Sharon McAlear. She came on board late last year, setting up the new office. Then, in the new year, I had to be away from my electorate office quite a bit since I had gained the position of minister right at a time when Sharon was learning the ropes. Next came the election which was very tough on her. She has done a great job. She is a competent and independent worker, and it is great to see her getting a handle on the electorate office that I am, unfortunately, rarely at.
I very much like to thank my children. As we know in this House, it is a very tough time on kids. To Cody and Lily, I look forward to spending a lot more time with you over the Christmas break, and making up for a bit of time lost this year.
I acknowledge all the work that the Assembly staff do. To Gaddy, Captain Horton, Ian McNeill, Steve and Annette - who I know is trying to get away tonight. She has a 4 am start in the morning to go on television. Thanks for all your support. To all the Hansard staff who do a great job to get the publication to us as quickly as they can. Also to all the Legislative Assembly staff who do a fine job in looking after members. I hope everyone has a great Christmas and New Year.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): This is only going to be a very brief, Madam Speaker. Tonight, I complain and whinge about this government’s attitude of saying ‘come and get a briefing’ every time something happens and we want some advice about what is going on in government. I just walked around to the back of the Chamber and very politely asked the Treasurer for a briefing or an opportunity to contact Treasury staff in relation to what was tabled here today in terms of the mid-year report. The advice was: ‘No, no, you can stick to protocol. We are going to get briefings to you through the normal process’.
If the government wants to run this line that we always have to get briefings, then, if we apply for briefings, they should happen in a timely fashion. The last briefing I had from Treasury staff was a result of having to wait for about four or five weeks. This government insists we get briefings. If you insist on that, then make the briefings available in a timely fashion.
I do not pretend to be an economist or an accountant. In the role of shadow Treasurer, there are times when you require a few simple questions answered as to how certain documents should be interpreted. These are not particularly difficult issues. They can be dealt with in a minute. It would be simpler if a member of parliament, with the acquiescence of the minister, could ask a non-political question of a public servant to explain a simple thing. With a couple of quick questions, the whole thing would be over in five minutes, and the member of parliament who was asking the questions would be informed in a way the government insists that members of parliament should be informed.
Rather than that, the Treasurer churlishly crosses her arms across her chest and says: ‘No, you are not getting one unless you go through the normal process.’ When will that be available? I will tell you when it will be available – when it is too late to address these issues effectively. I can ask these questions from other sources, I really can. It is not that hard, but it just would have been far easier.
As far as the Treasurer’s attitude is concerned, she is more than happy to stand up here and say: ‘We will make briefings available’. Well, do so. Make them available. Make them available in a timely fashion. The Treasurer may choose to sit there with a smirk on her face and think it is all very funny: ‘Ooh, I am sticking one up the nose of the members opposite.’ The fact is it is our duty as members of parliament to brief ourselves and get ourselves organised in a way that we can do this job effectively. When it comes to technical issues in various areas across government, then occasionally, we on the opposition require information from public servants who have expertise in those areas. It is churlish in the extreme for a Treasurer to refuse to make simple bits of information available because …
Ms Lawrie: I did not refuse to.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, you did. You absolutely refused. You said, no.
Ms Lawrie: Come on. Do not verbal. I did not say, no.
Mr ELFERINK: I asked the Treasurer if I could ring the Under Treasurer. No, cannot ring them up; it has to go through normal process.
Ms Lawrie: Normal process.
Mr ELFERINK: Normal process takes four weeks. It will be Christmas by the time the normal process is made available to me. This is part of the arrogant way you guys do your business.
Ms Lawrie: Same protocols that have always existed. You know that.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh protocols, same protocols that have always existed. I pick up on that interjection. The fact is you are the minister. You do not have to slavishly adhere to protocols. The minister can make a decision all by herself. It would not be an absolute miracle for the minister to do so. All you have to do, minister, is say: ‘Yes, absolutely, ring that particular public servant. Ask a couple questions’. I will even give you a guarantee that they are not highly political issues I am asking about. I just want a couple of interpretive issues in relation to how to read a document. That is it. That is as technical as it gets. But, no, we have to stick to protocol.
Well, guess what? Protocols do not have to be slavishly adhered to and, quite frankly, there is no reason this protocol, wherever it might be written, has to be slavishly adhered to. Normally, briefings are sought. For many years, I have, inside and outside this place, had an arrangement with numerous ministers in the past where I said to those ministers and to the ministerial staff that, on occasion: ‘I will contact the head of the department or something like that to get non-political information out of a public servant. Is that all right?’ And on every occasion when I did that, with one exception, the answer was: ‘Yes, that is fine, as long as it is non-political’. It was a convenient way to deal with these issues.
This smug Treasurer believes in some way there is one-upmanship to be achieved by preventing me asking a straightforward and simple question.
That is my frustration with this government. They claim to make things available, and keep saying: ‘Come and get briefings.’ Yet, when you do, they take four or five weeks to organise. It is not until you are writing to the Senate that they suddenly decide to get excited about an issue and offer you a briefing. It is not until you are whingeing about it in public that you get offered stuff. This government does not live up to the charter it preaches. This comes down to what the member for Fong Lim has to say from time to time: it is not what this government says that you should be watching, but what this government does.
It is absurd beyond words that I get stonewalled in this fashion. I am going to find out what I need to find out by other means. It is not going to cause me any grief to do so but, gee whiz, for an open, honest and accountable government, they really do not like providing any information whatsoever.
And it is not just the Treasurer. There is one other example that has gotten up my nose recently. That was the Police minister who said: ‘No, you cannot go for a ride in a police car in your own electorate’. What is he afraid I am going to see? It is not like I have not been in a police car in my life. However, this Chief Minister said: ‘No, you cannot go for a drive in a police car because I do not want you to. It is not normal protocol’. Oh, garbage! The Chief Minister and the Police minister and any minister can give permission for a non-departmental person, be it the shadow minister or otherwise, to visit the department.
It is with some irritation that I listened to Leon Compton from ABC radio two days after I was refused access to the police force on the grounds that I was not the shadow minister telling us how he went out on a random breath-testing station. Well, guess what? Leon Compton, God bless his little cotton socks, is not the shadow minister for Police. It is this trivial, small-minded approach by this government that is starting to percolate through the way they do business. It frustrates me beyond imagination that simple and straightforward advice is being withheld for no other reason than to score a point.
Well, bully for you, Treasurer and bully for the Chief Minister. I am not going to be slowing my attempts to get information simply because you want to put obstructions in my way. All it does is mildly irritate me until I find ways to get round these issues.
There has been a small hiatus for a few years since I have given a Christmas thank you in this place. I thank the parliamentary staff, the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, the rest of the staff in the place. Hansard – I know you are up there listening – I thank very much for their dedication and patience with us in the Chamber. I know it is frustrating from time to time, but they do their job diligently. The editorial team, in particular, have this enormous capacity to turn some of the drivel we utter into coherent or at least semi-coherent written documents.
I also thank my wife who has put up with my ambitions and desires and has supported me remarkably well over the last few years, particularly this year. My two kids, Eleanor, aka Boofus Headus Robustus, and Guinevere, aka Squirtus Meconium. They are two great little kids. They are the light of my life and make getting out of bed worthwhile every morning.
Madam Speaker, Merry Christmas, also. Thanks to my staff, Alicia Lantry and Tory Mencshelyi. Both of them are a great support to me. They are the sort of people who help us look good. I also place on the record my thanks to the CLP membership, particularly the Darwin branch, who have supported me over this year. It never ceases to amaze me the many hours they put in all for the satisfaction of knowing that their belief system is being supported by me. I am grateful to them for their kindness and the passion they provide, not only to me but to the Country Liberals and, more importantly, the Territory as a whole.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Deputy Speaker, we are in the last sittings of the year and it is customary for members to give their Christmas thanks during this sittings. I will be sticking with that custom and practice.
We have seen the decorations in the shops for a while now, but for me, Christmas is about families and the time spent with families. I hope my constituents in the electorate of Karama get the opportunity during the Christmas season to spend time with their loved ones and enjoy the coming together that Christmas often heralds, whether it is at home or travelling to see loved ones wherever they may be.
I always take time to thank the schools in my electorate: the principals, the teachers, and the staff who work tirelessly throughout the year in the very difficult task of harnessing the enthusiasm and energy of the children in our schools and the all important learning journey they go on throughout the year.
My wholehearted thanks to the principal, staff, and teachers of Karama Primary and Preschool. It is a great school of which I am particularly proud. They have won awards over the years and continue to prove you can provide mainstream education to children in a low socioeconomic area and excel. They continue to look outside the box in the way they deliver education. I am proud of the way they deliver education to our most disadvantaged students, our indigenous pupils, at Karama.
Thanks to the Tata Family Centre, another innovative program. I sincerely thank them for working with the young families in Karama based at our school. I feel very strongly about seeing this program continue.
Malak Primary School has a special unit where they deal with children who are unable to cope with school elsewhere, particularly autistic children. I thank the principal, staff and teachers of Malak for all the endeavours they undertake. It is an excellent school and everyone who sends their child there know their five ways of learning program shows how innovative they are and the quality education they provide.
To the principal, staff, and teachers of Manunda Terrace Primary School - which is in a lower socioeconomic pocket with high density public housing and a very high multicultural mix - I send Christmas tidings. They have a very high Indigenous attendance at that school. They go out of their way to service the children of Knuckeys Lagoon, a town camp in Darwin. I sincerely thank the staff, teachers and principal at Manunda Terrace Primary School.
All these public primary schools could not operate at their level of excellence, teaching and nurturing without the participation of the schools’ councils and the parents on those councils. There are too many to name here, but they are tireless in their commitment to the students, staff, teachers and principals of those schools. I sincerely thank them. It has been my privilege to work with those three public primary schools in my electorate. They have all come a long way in the last year. The students have embarked on a very strong journey of learning and I sincerely thank everyone involved in those schools, from the schools’ councils through to the staff.
Sanderson high school is now an innovative middle school. The principal is setting very strong standards of behaviour, and is also dealing with the wellbeing and nurturing of the student community. It is a completely new dimension for Sanderson in becoming a middle school. I know they have gone out of their way to embrace new wellbeing programs.
The Clontarf program is seeing excellent results in the attendance of male students in the school. My electorate officer, Kerry Wetherall, is on an Indigenous leadership program and running an innovative girls program at Sanderson Middle School which is the first of its kind in the Territory. By all accounts it is going well. I am proud to be able to support that program and its endeavours. I am pleased to see not only are we attending to the needs of our boys, but also the girls there. I sincerely thank all of the staff, teachers and the principal.
I have a lot of interaction with Sanderson Middle School. I recognise the many challenges they meet with excellence. All of the ancillary staff, the ATSI parents and the ATSI contribution that goes into that school, shows there is a great strength of community in Karama and Malak. They punch above their weight in the hours they put in over and above the standards demanded.
We have heard debates in this Chamber today about crime in our community and parents taking responsibility. I have witnessed strong parental leadership across all of my public schools, be it the primary schools or the middle schools in Karama electorate.
I also congratulate the Catholic schools in my electorate: Holy Family School, which has the Rainbow Early Learning Centre attached to it, and O’Loughlin College. They are going from strength to strength each year. 2008, by any stretch, has been a very successful year for those public schools. I believe in choice. I believe in a range of options and the experience I have in my electorate is that both schools are setting very strong standards in the private sector.
I also congratulate Marrara Christian School, a school which has come into my electorate with the boundary changes. They are innovative and showing strength of leadership in Indigenous learning at that school. I look forward to working closer with Marrara Christian School in achieving its aspirations. They are performing a very important role in our community with the intake of students from across the Territory.
I thank my electorate officer, Kerry Wetherall. She is a hard-working, young Indigenous mother who, I believe, is a very strong role model for the community. She has a many relatives and people she has grown up within the community all of whom she is showing that, despite enormous odds - that is, four kids plus being a foster carer with any number of kids at any time - you can achieve well at the local electorate level. She puts her heart and soul into the job as my electorate officer and works tireless hours. She has achieved enormous things. We have many people coming through the doors of the electorate office regarding their needs – significantly, housing needs because of the public housing density within the Karama electorate. There are others with a whole range of social needs. I am very proud they meet someone who is tolerant, intelligent, and capable and who will follow through on their issues and needs.
Kerry could not do the job without the support she receives from my mother, Dawn, who fills in on Wednesdays when Kerry runs the girls program at Sanderson Middle School. I sincerely thank Dawn for the support she has given through the years, but, also, this year as well as in my life.
I also thank Rita Cluley. You never stop learning, and Rita is an astute educator. She has spent decades as such a teacher and in her retirement gets right outside her comfort zone. She is active in the historical society and a whole range of different community places. She is getting into my electorate office as a back-up person. I thank Rita for the effort she makes in ensuring we have someone to call on to take care of the electorate office.
Also to Greg Wills who continues to be an inspiration to me in the way he cares for people in society, particularly the most disadvantaged people. He is an outstanding educator and therapist when it comes to children with disability. I look forward to him continuing his PhD because I know what he is doing across the remote and regional areas of the Territory is truly groundbreaking. If that means our educators know how to educate children with disability appropriately so they can achieve their potential, then this, indeed, is very exciting work. He has my wholehearted support. I thank him for the support he has shown me throughout the years and, very significantly, this year.
I thank Team Karama. I do not have the time to name them individually, but I know I will be sharing some Christmas drinks with them at the Karama Tavern, at the Julies Bistro. They are a great bunch of people from a diverse range of backgrounds and professions who never hesitate in telling me what they are feeling and understanding from our broader community.
In Malak, there were outstanding achievements this year from Bong Ramilo in what he is doing with the youth there. Against the odds he took Browns Mart to the community grassroots level by establishing Darwin Community Arts. He has a space operating at Malak and is running a range of programs for the youth. The centre is embracing the entire community with events such as movie nights and cultural celebration evenings. He works very closely with the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory, which is also based at Malak. I thank them for reaching out again this year to the broader multicultural community by being based at Malak and ensuring that people are coming in and using that facility.
I also thank Danila Dilba. They have their social wellbeing program at Malak and are doing a great job in servicing the needs of Indigenous constituents.
I enjoy my time as a tenant at the Karama Shopping Centre and the interaction I have with the Karama Newsagent; the chemist; the post office staff; Brumby’s staff; the Panda staff; Coles; Lyndall’s, the hairdressers there – Lyndall is great; and the Karama Tavern. They are all very supportive of local community events in Karama and dip into their own pockets to support community events. They very recently supported the Pink Party, which was a fundraiser for Dragons Abreast. We raised about $3100. Local shopping centre owner, Peter La Pira, came to the party with a very significant donation, as did the local traders at Karama.
I thank Michelle Hanton and Dragons Abreast. They enjoyed the Pink Party we hosted. We had people from throughout Australia attend this year because it was our 10th anniversary. It was a great Pink Party but, most importantly, it continued to connect women who have had breast cancer with Dragons Abreast and the good work they do. It never ceases to amaze me that each Pink Party we have, we find a breast cancer survivor who has simply not connected with the network of women who are survivors. It is only through the Pink Party that they become connected. Obviously, it is important in providing them with the support to go on with the process of recovery and, importantly, the enjoyment of life.
As minister, I thank the Darwin Port Corporation, both the board as well as the staff – there is fine leadership from the management team at Darwin Port Corporation. They are doing a splendid job. There are enormous challenges with the port, and they are meeting them extremely well.
I thank the entire team at the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, DIP. They work solidly right across the Territory. They are the engine room, as I am fond of saying, of government, both in planning as well as the Infrastructure division. They work across all the government agencies to deliver projects, particularly infrastructure projects, across the Territory.
I thank the staff and management team at Treasury. It has been my pleasure this year to work with Treasury, a central agency of government. They, like DIP, work across and with entire government agencies. They provide excellent and timely advice to government at all times. I know they work extremely long hours, as well, in intensive periods, for example, leading up to the budget period and the like.
I thank my ministerial staff. They work very long hours and very hard. We have an enormous workload with my ministerial responsibilities, and also as Leader of Government Business. Whether it is sittings or not, they are working very long hours with me to ensure we meet the needs of the Territory and Territorians because we are very focused not just on our urban centres, but our key regional areas as well. We have seen that with the successes we have had lately with release programs and the like. That focus extends right into remote areas, too.
In the short time I have left, I sincerely thank the Legislative Assembly staff. They work very long hours, as we do. In sittings they are in here very early in the morning and remain until very early in the morning – into the next 24 hour clock. Hansard has to put up with all of our speeches, and I sincerely thank them. I thank the Table Office staff, the committee staff, the Clerk and his staff, and all of the Legislative Assembly staff. I have seen the education program running gang busters throughout the year. Everyone in the Assembly has been working hard to support us in the work we do to ensure democracy.
To all my colleagues in government, I wish you all a very healthy, happy and safe season and also to the opposition and the Independent member.
A final reminder, as Transport minister: please, may everyone be safe throughout the Christmas period. I know there are many celebrations occurring across the community. There is absolutely no excuse to drink and drive. If you are going to drink and drive, you are a bloody idiot.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016