2010-05-05
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of staff from the Department of Justice. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that at 11 am, during government business, I will call on the Leader of the Opposition to deliver the opposition’s response to the budget. The member speaking at the time will be asked to continue their remarks at a later hour.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The bill puts in place a package of measures announced as part of Budget 2001-11 by proposing amendments to the Stamp Duty Act, Taxation Administration Act, First Home Owner Grant Act, Mineral Royalty Act and Victims of Crime Assistance Act.
Most of the key proposals in the bill focus on the government’s commitment to a balanced housing market across all market segments. This is a priority in the Territory 2030 strategic plan. In keeping with this priority, the bill proposes to improve housing affordability in the Territory by increasing the stamp duty First Home Owner Concession, increasing the Principal Place of Residence Rebate, and introducing a stamp duty concession for senior citizens, veterans, pensioners, and carers. To further assist homebuyers, the government proposes to again increase the stamp duty First Home Owner Concession, and Principal Place of Residence Rebate.
Members will recall that, since coming into office, the government has reformed and introduced a range of stamp duty-related home ownership concession schemes, including the First Home Owner Concession, and the Principal Place of Residence Rebate. The government has consistently reviewed and increased these concessions to ensure they suit the Territory’s housing market.
In keeping with this, the first homeowner concession will increase from the first $385 000 of a property’s value to the first $540 000 of a property’s value. This will result in the maximum concession for first homebuyers being $26 730, which is an increase of about 70%, or over $11 000. Increasing the first homeowner concession will ensure the stamp duty will not impede home ownership for most first homebuyers. Furthermore, setting the concession at the first $540 000 of a property’s value will ensure the cost of stamp duty does not lock first homebuyers out of the housing market.
The Principal Place of Residence Rebate will also be increased by 40%, from a maximum of $2500 to a maximum of $3500. This will assist other Territorians buying a home which is to be used as their principal place of residence. This means these homebuyers will pay no stamp duty on approximately the first $143 330 of their home’s value. This is a significant increase from the previous $111 850.
In keeping with another action in the Territory 2030 strategic plan to provide financial relief to retirees moving into retirement accommodation, the government also proposes to introduce a new stamp duty home ownership concession of $8500 for senior citizens, pensioners, veterans and carers. The new concession recognises the valuable contribution seniors and carers have made, and will continue to make, to the Territory. It also promotes the Territory as a place for seniors to retire, and assists them in transitioning from a larger family home to more suitable accommodation. This may assist in increasing the supply of established family homes to contribute to housing affordability. Homebuyers will be eligible for this new concession if they are at least 60 years of age, or hold a Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Card. Other eligibility criteria will be similar to those existing for the Territory’s other stamp duty home ownership concessions.
It is proposed these changes apply to instruments executed on or after 4 May 2010. Purchases secured prior to that date, either by contract or option, will not be eligible for the new or increased concessions. It is expected homebuyers in the Territory will save $5.4m in 2010-11 from the increase to the First Home Owner Concession and Principal Place of Residence Rebate, and from the new Senior, Pensioner and Carer Concession.
As part of the government’s push to promote home ownership among Aboriginal people, the bill also extends the First Home Owner Grant and the stamp duty home ownership incentive schemes to eligible Aboriginal people who acquire land, or homes, pursuant to long-term leases granted under the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. This proposal will also commence from 1 May 2010, and supports measures designed to address the large disparity in home ownership rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians.
The bill also seeks to introduce a stamp duty exemption for the establishment of, and the transfer of, property to a special disability trust where no consideration is provided. Special disability trusts were introduced by the Commonwealth to assist relatives of disabled persons to engage in succession planning for the benefit of the disabled person. This assistance is provided through concessional means testing and tax treatment to assets held in such trusts. The proposed exemption seeks to encourage the use of these trusts from 1 July 2010.
The bill also seeks to address a restriction of the stamp duty homeowner concessions concerning persons who are building a home. Currently, a home must be occupied within the earlier of 12 months of a home being built, or three years from the date the land is purchased. The bill proposes the maximum three year time in which to build be increased to five years, starting from when the person becomes entitled to possession of the vacant land.
For persons purchasing a home off the plan, the three year time frame to build will be removed. However, there will be a requirement to occupy the home within 12 months from when the conveyee becomes entitled to possession of it. Although this change will commence from 1 July 2010, the extended five year period will be available to people who have missed out on a stamp duty concession because of the current requirement to have a home built within three years.
I now turn to another key measure of the bill. The bill proposes to increase the mineral royalty rate from 18% to 20% of the nett value of a mine’s production. This change in the rate, which is the first since the Mineral Royalty Act commenced in 1982, is effective from 1 July 2010. The new rate gives an increased community return from non-renewable resources that are owned by the Territory. The rate increase will strengthen the contribution of the mining industry to the long-term welfare of the Territory and our community.
This follows similar recent royalty increases in New South Wales and Queensland to increase their return from coal mining in those states. However, importantly, unlike other states which predominately use output-based royalty schemes, the Territory imposes royalty on a mine’s profitability. This means Territory mines only contribute royalty when they are able to derive a profit. At a royalty rate of 20%, this contribution is still considered to be a fair share of profits derived from the Territory’s minerals.
Although it is difficult to compare output-based royalties with profit-based royalties on a year to year basis, on a long-term or life-of-mine basis, the new 20% rate compares to the mid-range of the output royalty rates imposed in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia, being the main mineral producing Australian states. In this regard, this increase is not expected to disadvantage the Territory in being considered for future resource projects. This measure is expected to increase revenue by about $9.2m in 2010-11. This is because the first six-monthly payment received in 2010-11 relates to the period of 1 January to 30 June 2010, when the rate of 18% applies. The increased revenue is expected to be $14.8m in 2011-12, reflecting the full year effect on revenue. These numbers are based on miner’s estimates, where possible, of commodity prices and mining production, as well as global demand for commodities, and the value of the Australian dollar. In recent times, these factors have been shown to have a highly variable impact on a mine’s profitability and the royalty it pays to the Territory.
This bill also proposes several measures to strengthen the integrity of the Territory’s stamp duty legislation. This will reduce the risk of the legislation being exploited, and the payment of stamp duty avoided. Unless otherwise indicated, it is proposed these measures commence from 4 May 2010.
The first measure seeks to clarify that stamp duty remains payable on the grant of a lease where valuable consideration, in addition to rent, is provided. This measure addresses an avoidance scheme which is the subject of a Supreme Court of New South Wales decision. The court decided consideration given for an option to grant a lease was technically not dutiable. Second, the bill introduces changes to landholder stamp duty so the concept of an acquisition includes an interest acquired as part of an arrangement for the provision of finance. However, there will be no duty on the acquisition if the commissioner is satisfied the acquisition is solely for financing purposes.
The proposed amendment will require duty to be paid unless the interest is returned to the person who is obtaining the finance, or otherwise disposed of pursuant to a mortgagee’s power of sale within five years. A longer period may be approved by the commissioner. The measure is based on similar provisions in New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT and Tasmania. This closes an opportunity to mask otherwise taxable acquisitions as financing arrangements to avoid the payment of duty.
The last of these integrity measures seeks to clearly set out when an interest in a landholding corporation is acquired and ensure the timing of an acquisition cannot be deferred to avoid stamp duty. It is proposed the time when an interest will be taken to be acquired be the earlier of:
the date the transfer documents are delivered to the person acquiring the interest;
I now turn to a number of other measures in the bill which also commence on 1 July 2010. These measures are aimed at making the Territory stamp duty legislation more efficient. The Commissioner of Territory Revenue can currently create and assess duty on a memorandum where taxpayers fail to lodge a dutiable instrument for assessment. The bill seeks to clarify that a memorandum can also be created where it is impossible or impractical for an instrument to be lodged for a reassessment. This measure also clarifies the circumstances when a memorandum may be created in relation to the registration of a motor vehicle.
The bill also proposes to broaden the concept of a family trust for the purposes of the substituted purchaser concession by allowing a family trust to have a family company as a beneficiary. The substituted purchaser provisions were introduced in 2009, and allow a purchaser to nominate a related person, prior to settlement, to receive the property being purchased without double stamp duty consequences. This is provided a sub-sale of the property has not occurred.
The last of these efficiency measures ensures where land is granted by the Territory, stamp duty can be assessed on the value of the land when all or part of the monetary consideration that passes is unascertained at the time of the grant. This measure is in response to profit sharing arrangements involving the grant of Crown land.
The bill also proposes two minor amendments to the Taxation Administration Act. The bill clarifies that despite their repeal, the former payroll tax and stamp duty legislation, as well as the former taxation administration legislation, continue to be taxation laws under the Taxation Administration Act. The bill also ensures that the Commissioner can allocate payments from taxpayers in the order of interest, penalty tax and primary tax.
The bill also amends the Victims of Crime Assistance Act. The purpose of this is to amend section 61(6) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act so that the levy on infringement notices is increased from $10 to $20. The victims levy is collected to offset the cost of delivering financial assistance to victims of crime in the Northern Territory. This levy has been in place since 1990 under repealed crimes (victims assistance) act, and was last increased in November of 2002. The victims levy is paid into the victims’ assistance fund established under section 60 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act. Of the two sources of funding for the victims levy, infringement notices and court imposed levies for offences, the increase only relates to the levy on infringement notices, for example, red light cameras, mobile cameras, speeding and other traffic offences and their enforcement. Currently, the levy is $10 for each infringement notice or enforcement order.
The proposed amendment of section 61(6) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act will increase that levy from $10 to $20. This increase is to take effect from 1 July 2010 in relation to offences committed on or after that date. The increase is to ensure a clearly defined funding base to manage the ongoing costs of financial and other assistance to victims of crime. A review of the first three years of operation of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act is due to be conducted this year.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee 2010-11, and a Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee 2010-11, pursuant to the terms circulated to members.
Since coming to government in 2001, we have instituted an Estimates Committee. There was no Estimates Committee in this parliament prior to that. As I understand it, it was the only arrangement in Australia existing at that time. This government certainly wanted openness and transparency in government, where ministers would appear before an Estimates Committee, and where public servants could be questioned on outputs within the appropriation budget. This is a very important process and as a minister I look forward to it. It is an opportunity to really dig down into the financial and operational issues around the departments, and also engage with the opposition and have a dialogue in outputs, in what is being achieved, in what the opposition may suggest, what is not being achieved, and where things can be improved.
I value the input from the member for Nelson. I believe he has been a very strong contributor within the estimates process. He has asked some very practical and commonsense questions which, in some cases, are quite challenging, however they really add to the estimates process. I welcome the estimates process.
There are some changes in estimates this year, and they have been flagged in the Terms of Reference circulated to members. What we are debating here is essentially a procedural motion; a very important motion.
Some of the changes are around the sitting times. A total of 50 hours has been allocated to estimates this year. That is up from approximately 45 hours the previous year. To accommodate that, there are some changes which are being considered by the Estimates Committee in timing, and the timetable for ministers to appear before the Estimates Committee.
In the past we would precede estimates with a three day sitting week, followed by a four day sitting week, being estimates itself, starting on Tuesday and continuing through to Friday. This year we will have three days of sittings followed by an estimates day on the Friday. We will go from Monday of the second week through to the Friday, where the government owned corporations - Power and Water - will give evidence. We will then move back into parliament.
There are some rules, which have been agreed within the Standing Orders Committee, regarding the maximum time ministers can be examined, being seven hours. That has been negotiated, and I understand the Estimates Committee will be meeting today to finalise arrangements which will be published for members and ministers. Everyone can start work with some certainty around when they will be appearing, and the length of questioning for each portfolio area.
There are changes. It has been an issue continually raised by the opposition - there is never enough time in estimates. I can understand, from an opposition’s point of view, why they might say that, however there are changes. There has been an increase in time, and it is up to everyone to use their time wisely. In that vein, there have been changes regarding questioning, and the method of questioning ministers. I will quote from No 23 of the Terms of Reference so everyone will be clear on it:
There are some issues around the appropriateness of questions. Questions may be ruled by the Chair as not appropriate for an officer to answer, whereupon a minister, or Speaker, may choose to provide information or take such matters on notice. Then, No 24 of the Terms of Reference:
No 25 goes to Standing Orders 112, 113 and 114, which govern questions that are in order, or out of order - whichever way you want to look at it.
I believe we have made positive changes this year. I commend this motion to the House. We are going to embark on further change in estimates. This government, as I said, instituted an Estimates Committee, and we welcome the scrutiny of estimates.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this is a procedural motion and, yet, the Leader of Government Business cannot but engage in a little politics at the outset.
The history which is rewritten in this House is an amazing thing - that there was no Estimates Committee prior to the change of government. In fact, prior to the change in government, the Northern Territory was a cold miserable place; the air was dank, hung low over a wretched community which was suffering under the yoke of this evil Stalinist empire - the Country Liberals’ government. Then there was change. There was an election and there were rainbows in the sky, and trees with little robins in them singing sweetly as sunshine glowed warmly upon the people of the Northern Territory. What a pack of arrant nonsense!
There was an estimates process. The Appropriation bills, in those days, came before this House. Guess what? There were no time limits on speaking to ministers. Those ministers could be questioned to exhaustion; until the opposition had run out of questions. The government claimed last week the questions had to be submitted so answers could be given and then, any number of other questions could be followed up with – which were.
How often did we find ourselves in this House, under the old estimates process, until 2 am or 3 am because fulsome answers were given to an inquisitorial opposition examining the quality of the budget? That is the standard rewrite of history we have become so familiar with in this House.
This government talks about openness, honesty, and accountability; they say they are absolutely committed. Well, I agree - they should be committed. The fact is, since they have introduced their estimates process, there has not been questioning to exhaustion. Even through this process there will not be questioning to exhaustion. It is an improvement because there is an extension of time as to how long particular ministers can be cross-examined, if you like, in relation to what they are going to do with $5bn of Territorians’ money. However, it is still not question to exhaustion.
What they are replacing, for the public’s edification and knowledge, is a system by which the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, the officer-in-charge of spending the $5bn, up until now who had multiple portfolio areas, including the Attorney-General’s portfolio, was exposed to cross-examination for four hours, exactly the same time as the Sport minister was exposed to cross-examination.
Ms Lawrie: No, I go longer than four as Treasurer. I had seven hours. I had seven hours.
Mr ELFERINK: This motion changes that. If you would listen - listen.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Mr ELFERINK: You just got it wrong.
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not.
Mr ELFERINK: The cross-examination of the Chief Minister, the Attorney-General, the Treasurer, is now going to be longer than it has ever been. That is an important advance, but it is not a return to the days where questions were asked to the exhaustion of all questions, which meant by the time the shadow ministers in the old days sat down, they had asked every question they wanted to. I suspect, even under the new arrangements, that will not be achieved. I will say, however, the new arrangements are an improvement on the old ones. To that end, we will support the new arrangements.
However, to come into this House on a procedural motion, and attempt to rewrite the history of the Northern Territory, like they always do - they are so close to the fringe of dishonesty when they do that - is something which will visit them in the future. Territorians will wise up to this consistent rewriting of history, this consistent fudging the facts, and when they do I expect they will become wholly and solely sick of it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is interesting hearing a debate over an Estimates Committee motion, and I believe it is worth some response. I welcome the increase in the number of sitting hours. As mentioned previously, I prefer the extra three days added on to parliamentary sittings be added to estimates, because I believe this is one of the most important parts of the parliamentary process. It gives us an opportunity to investigate all departments on their policies in relation to the budget put forward by the Chief Minister yesterday, and responded to by the Opposition Leader today. I welcome the increase in hours.
I also welcome an opportunity to look at weighting portfolios. I know there are discussions with the opposition in relation to ensuring we have time to cover the portfolios of each minister. One of the concerns in previous sittings was some ministers may only have some of their portfolios questioned, leaving just as important portfolios, for instance, the port or tourism, for a number of years without being investigated. The changes we are looking at this year may go some way towards fixing that problem.
I heard what the member for Port Darwin said regarding whether there is enough time to question the government, and I know there have been discussions on extending the hours next year. This year there were some difficulties, especially around how the timing fitted in with the school holidays and public holidays. I believe there needs to be a review of how the parliamentary sittings fit with those times, and how the Estimates Committee would fit into those times. Hopefully this year things will change.
However the opposition, in analysing its performance last year, said it did not perform well. One area which has to be improved is ensuring questions are precise, just as we ask government to be precise and relevant, so there are no repetitive questions, and we use the time as efficiently as we ask the government to in answering questions. When it comes to use of hours, members on both sides need to improve the quality of both questions and answers. This is part of the evolving process of the Estimates Committee.
I was one of the original people on the Estimates Committee who visited Tasmania to look at their estimates process. I believe we have been able to develop ours more and more to suit the Northern Territory; and I believe people take an interest in estimates if we ask questions relevant to our constituents. We have to ensure, when we ask questions, they are the type of questions people want to hear answered.
Whilst it is good to be getting to the theoretical and philosophical, which are important, people want to know where their taxpayers’ money is being spent. If money is being allocated to vast projects such as the Tiger Brennan flyover, I am sure people want to know that money is being spent wisely. If it is over budget, they want to know why it is over budget; if it is underspent, they want to know why it is underspent; if something in last year’s budget has not been used this year, they want to know why it has not been allocated this year. The general public wants to know how their money is being spent, and the Estimates Committee gives members on this side an opportunity to extract that information in a public forum.
The Estimates Committee is open to the public, and we should emphasise that and encourage people to come to listen to what is being said. We need to advertise exactly when the Estimates Committee is sitting, who is speaking, what departments are appearing, and encourage people to come along to hear what ministers have to say about their portfolios.
I support the changes. I also support the concept of more direct questioning of the CEOs. I realise the need to recognise the minister is the boss of the department; however we need to recognise the Chair has an important role in our committees. The Chair should be able to adjudicate, at times, as to whether questions are appropriate to the CEO; that is they deal with matters of fact, rather than policy. I believe the role of the Chair should be recognised in our Estimates Committee as an important part of the process.
I certainly welcome the extra times. There is a PAC meeting at lunchtime, which will discuss the times and dates ministers will appear. That will be a relief for many ministers and departments; at least they will know where to aim because, as we know, there is much back room work in departments getting ready for the Estimates Committee. In fact, I was talking to someone today who said: ‘Whenever the day is our minister speaks, we have to sit on the phones all day to ensure we are ready to answer any questions that come through.’ There is not only work for the ministers. This puts a great deal of work on public servants; and we should recognise that work. That is part of the process of opening up government and, if government says it is open and transparent, the Estimates Committee is one way to show whether it is following its philosophy of being open and transparent.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I sit here at times and laugh and giggle when I hear the government talking about openness and accountability. What a joke; what an absolute joke! I have sat through one estimates process; I am a member of the PAC, and it is more about keeping information from the public than giving it to the public.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear what the member for Nelson had to say about the Chair having an important role, and there is no doubt about it: the Chair does have an important role. However, it should never be forgotten that the Chair of this committee is a partisan person; a person from the Labor Party who wants to ensure his comrades do not walk out of it looking too bad.
We see ministers facing the Estimates Committee who constantly waffle; no matter how much you try to shut them up and say: ‘We have done with that question, let us ask something else’, we see a Chair step in and say: ‘Hang on, hang on, let them answer’. You quickly find the few hours you have to discuss a particular issue or output group dissolves to a matter of minutes. In opposition, when you go in to ask questions, you are armed with a plethora of different questions to hit a minister with on a particular subject, and you quickly find your time has dissolved into nothing. You do the best you can, ask a couple of key questions, watch the minister rattle on infinitum and do everything they possibly can to retain information rather than provide information.
To suggest this government is open and accountable is completely wrong. It is stupid if people think that is what they are trying to do. This government is not interested in people knowing what they are doing. They are shrouded in secrecy, and doing everything they possibly can to keep information from the public.
To come into this House and suggest they have done us a great favour by extending the hours - I believe is great by the way, I agree with it, however, as the member for Port Darwin explained, this is not the way things always work. It is like the world only started 10 years ago - before that there was nothingness. We had corrupt governments who did nothing; nothing changed until we had this new government of Labor comrades who fixed everything. They have done it all.
I do not buy that for a second, and their rewriting of history is absolutely shameful. To come into this House and suggest there was no estimates process before they came to government is complete nonsense, absolute nonsense, absolute arrant nonsense. People should not believe that sort of talk because the fact is, as the member for Port Darwin explained, ministers could be questioned to exhaustion. They had to answer questions; eventually they had to answer questions.
The member for Karama may well have found herself standing for several hours answering questions under the old system. Now she comes with that dull, boring, monotone, nasal voice, rattles on for hours and hours and hours with meaningless rot and dribble, and the opposition has to listen to the mindless dribble which comes from the mouth of the member for Karama …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … and she is not alone.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: We are often told, on this side of the House, none of us have any experience as ministers. None on the other side have any experience in opposition. None of them have done an apprenticeship in the wilderness. None of them have had to sit there and …
Ms Lawrie: Not true, not true!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … question, in some cases what we have these days, brain dead ministers, who know nothing about their portfolios but do know how to talk under water and waffle nonsense …
Ms Lawrie: He is misleading parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: ... endlessly. It is pathetic, and it is wrong to suggest this government is open, accountable and transparent.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: What a load of nonsense. I note I have been speaking now for about 10 minutes, constant interjections …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … no reflection on the Chair, but to suggest we have independent chairs on estimates is completely wrong. The fact is chairs in this House are partisan …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … they belong to a party, they are there to support their comrades, and they do that well.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Government members!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution, particularly the member for Nelson. I thought he gave a fairly even-handed and practical oversight of the estimates process. I agree with much of what he had to say, particularly his point about the amount of preparation public servants do to get to the estimates process. I know, often, there is disappointment when there is not enough time for their particular area to be scrutinised. One area might be the Darwin Port Corporation. I do not believe the Darwin Port Corporation - I may stand corrected here - has been scrutinised once in the whole time I have been a minister. It is a very important part of our operation. I am certain this year, given the changes, the Darwin Port Corporation will be scrutinised, and that is quite appropriate. There is much preparation for those working in the departments, and that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Dr BURNS: I can tell the House that preparation actually starts towards to the end of the calendar year preceding estimates. As minister, I always have a conversation with the department at that time, and start preparing for estimates. It is a long-term process to prepare for estimates. That is very important.
The members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim lauded the process that occurred previously, when a Committee of the Whole, as I understand it, would inquire into the estimates process. Indeed, the member for Fong Lim forgets the Chief Minister has been in opposition; you were wrong about that. It is not always a good idea to generalise like that, member for Fong Lim.
As I understand it, under the Committee of the Whole system, questions had to be submitted well in advance, in writing, and the dialogue - I may stand corrected from the one member who was here as an opposition member - they were not allowed to digress too much from those written questions. Whereas, what we have now is more of a conversation in the interaction between the opposition, Independents, the public servants, and the minister. There is much more freedom to ask questions, and take a particular line of questioning.
Moreover, the member for Port Darwin conveniently did not mention that, under the old system, it was here in parliament. He mentioned it went until 2 am or 3 am, but there were no televised proceedings. Proceedings in estimates are televised, and are available to the media and the public to scrutinise. I believe it is the step in the right direction; and a very positive step.
We have been criticised by opposition members about the fact they believe government is not interested in giving information; that, basically, we try to hide information. That is completely untrue, member for Fong Lim. I am more than happy to give the best answers I can and, if I do not know the answers, I always undertake to give a written answer. You are drawing quite a long bow there.
I should add there may have been an error in the first part of my speech where I said estimates is sitting on the Monday. Of course, that is not correct; it is sitting from Tuesday to Friday of the second week.
Opposition needs to make better use of its time. We know the member for Goyder wrote a review of estimates last year – and I am quoting her: there was an expectation by many that their performance would be better than the previous years; however, these expectations were not met.
I am sorry about the grammar; that is what I have. It says they felt they put a few ministers under pressure. I had to smile when the member for Port Darwin said he now has seven hours with the Treasurer. I can tell you, member for Port Darwin, you are going to be lacerated; she will make mince meat of you as she does every year. It might be seven hours of torture for you; that is what I am betting anyway.
On the downside, the following areas were identified- not a disciplined team, unfocused, inability to understand a process of questioning and subsequent questioning, lack of understanding of what estimates is about, poorly informed on the process of estimates, too much ego in the room, lack of strategy.
For many members, last year was the first time for estimates. As government, and with the member for Goyder, there will be an expectation the performance would be better than last year. One would hope so, because it was a pretty abysmal performance by some members opposite.
Madam Speaker, the bottom line is it is a very important process. It is an opportunity for opposition members to understand better the processes of government and governance, funding, and the operations of departments. It is also an opportunity, as I see it, for ministers to be better informed and challenged about those particular issues. I believe it is a very healthy process for democracy, and I commend this motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 4 May 2010.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will continue my remarks regarding the statement by my colleague, the Minister for Women’s Policy, delivered in the House last night.
I was speaking about the paucity of women who are on boards in the top 200 Australian companies - being 8% since 2002 - and that there are no women represented on the boards of more than half the top 200 companies. I said that was an absolute disgrace. As individuals, and people in our electorates who might be passionate about this issue, if we are shareholders in those companies, we can ask questions and demand, as much as shareholders can, to see an increase in the number of women on those boards in the top companies in Australia. It is inexcusable it is only 8%.
Things are moving slowly and, in response, the Australian Institute of Company Directors has launched a mentoring program designed to identify experienced and skilled women who are ASX200 board-ready, with a view to increasing the chances of women being appointed to boards and listing the number of women on boards. That is a positive move forward.
Further, in a commitment to increasing the number of women in leadership roles, the Australian Securities Exchange has proposed new rules that will, from January 2011, require ASX-listed companies to disclose the number of women directors, executives and employees in their annual report. Again, it is hard to believe in the year 2010, only 8% of all board members on the best listed companies in Australia are women. Slowly things are changing, and it will require shareholder pressure to ensure those numbers are increased.
As the minister has reported in her statement to the House, the Territory Labor government is committed to developing a plan to realise equal representation between women and men on all government boards and committees. I look forward to working with the minister in reaching that target. I encourage all members to encourage women they know within their own personal circumstances, as well as through networks and the electorates, to nominate through the website their interest in serving on government boards.
The member for Araluen spoke passionately in this House, as she always does, about domestic violence. As I said yesterday, my agency, particularly Police, is responding in a very significant way, both in policy and resources, to crack down on repeat perpetrators of domestic violence. NTPFES employs a number of recruiting strategies in continuing to build a diverse workforce with a particular focus on attracting Indigenous staff, women police officers, and fire fighters. As of June 2009, women represented 29% of the Northern Territory Police Force, which has been a significant increase. I do not have those numbers with me for the last 10 years, and I would hesitate to say they are probably right up there amongst all police forces of Australia, in as much as 1% shy of 30% of our police force are women. I would like to see that number increase, and there are proactive recruiting strategies being deployed.
If the member for Araluen has noticed the current advertisements on television by Police, they have policewomen in very prominent roles talking about becoming a police officer. The last advertisement I saw was almost exclusively policewomen speaking passionately about their love of the job, what a great job it is, and encouraging women to apply. I commend Police in acknowledging they need to lift those numbers, and they are doing something about it.
One initiative Police has used to encourage women to take on policing roles was targeted workshops held with police members, including new recruits, discussing the role of women and policing, and how women as potential recruits could be better targeted. The outcomes of these workshops led to new marketing campaigns strongly featuring women. As I stated, posters, radio and television advertisements all featured female representatives. In print and electronic advertising the line ‘women encouraged to apply’ was incorporated. I have seen those advertisements on television and they are fantastic. I cannot believe any other police force in Australia would be running that type of proactive campaign.
An evaluation of women expressing interest in a career in policing found there were some concerns and misunderstanding regarding the level of fitness. To address this, the police force hosted two come-and-try days, involving a full introduction to the fitness assessment conducted by a woman fitness instructor, and supported by the most recent police recruits. The next recruit squad contains 27 trainee police officers, 10 of whom are women. This is the highest number of women the NT police has had in one squad.
In September 2008, the Northern Territory Police hosted the 46th International Association of Women in Policing in Darwin for the first time; only the second time hosted in Australia. I spoke at that conference, which was attended by over 500 police women from 34 countries around the world, focused on improving policing for women by identifying best practice and developing technology. It was an outstanding success. I have seen numerous letters from people who attended that conference talking in glowing terms about what is happening to support women police officers in the Territory.
The theme ‘Policing New Territory’ was specifically chosen to showcase the challenges the Northern Territory Police Force faces compared to their counterparts across the world, as they patrol the vast Territory where fewer than 1% of the Australian population inhabits a land mass covering one sixth of the continent.
I would like to speak now about what police are doing to reduce domestic violence, which certainly is blight on society in the Northern Territory. According to the Office of Women’s Policy’s Domestic Violence Data Collection Report 2006, Northern Territory women face a higher risk of domestic and family violence, and of sexual assault, per capita than in other states and territories of Australia. We know, in a high proportion of cases, the violence is perpetrated by a partner, ex-partner, or a member of their family.
That is why last year this government introduced the Domestic and Family Violence Bill to force Territorians to report domestic and family violence to police where they believe serious physical harm will be suffered. Legislation is one thing; backing that up with additional police resources to enforce the legislation is another. Police introduced the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy in December 2004, which included domestic violence as part of that strategy. Some of the numbers are very significant. This government gave police powers to issue domestic violence orders, and the proactive work by police, according to figures I have, show for the 2009-10 year to date, 2596 domestic violence orders have been initiated by police, which is a 36.8% increase for the same period in 2008-09. This is police being proactive in targeting the perpetrators of domestic violence.
I commend former Police Commissioner Paul White with the additional police resources government supplied, who took the decision, around 2004, to support the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy, and to establish dedicated police domestic violence teams at Alice Springs, Katherine, and Darwin police stations. As mentioned, those police work in a proactive way to target repeat perpetrators of domestic violence. That increase of nearly 37% on DVOs issued by police is testament to their vigilance and application of the law. Also, the latest figure I have for the 2009-10 year to date is 1577 DVO contraventions were reported; a 31% increase compared to the same period last year.
We have debated this in the Chamber round and around. Certainly, the number of domestic violence incidents being perpetrated is shocking, however the numbers show women are more confident to report because they know police will take action, police will respond. Women are more confident to report knowing police will respond.
The additional resources given to police, the focus on targeted strategy and work they are doing, the fact it is now mandatory to report domestic violence, means the light is being shone on this horrific crime in a far greater way than in the past, and police are doing their job to crack down on the appalling people who commit acts of domestic violence.
I will conclude my remarks later.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of our first Dry Season public tour visitors, which runs every Wednesday from May to September. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it being 11 am, I call the Leader of the Opposition to make his reply to the budget.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this budget will be principally remembered for the debt and deficit the Treasurer, Delia Lawrie, is foisting onto Territorians. The cumulative deficits detailed in this year’s budget papers add up to more than $720m. The budget papers also indicate by 2013, the nett financial liabilities of the Territory taxpayer will be $4.8bn.
The Treasurer claims a sharp increase in the Territory’s budget deficits is responsible. There is nothing responsible about foisting an additional $4000 in debt on every man, woman and child in the Northern Territory. Every man, woman and child in the Territory now owes $7450, and that is before our superannuation liabilities are included. Calculate the coming wave of superannuation payouts, and our per capita liabilities jump to over $20 000.
It is worth reflecting on the Victorian budget which was also handed down yesterday. This year, Victoria will post a surplus of $395m. Next year’s forecast is for a surplus of $872m. In the years following, Victoria will enjoy surpluses in the order of $1.2bn. At the same time, public sector debt in Victoria is set to fall. These facts illustrate just how badly the Territory Treasurer has handled the challenges of difficult economic times.
The Treasurer has opted for the easy solution to falling revenues, deep deficits and increased debt. This budget has more than a financial deficit. This budget has a deficit of vision, a deficit of courage, and a deficit of honesty. Every budget we are told of a record spend in health, a record budget for education, more money for law and order; we have heard it again and again. Yet, Territorians wait longer in hospital emergency departments; Territorians have the poorest performing education system in the country. With just 2% of the national population, the Territory has a staggering 22% of the worst performing schools in the country. Territorians also endure an epidemic of violent crime.
These failures have come despite the Territory budget increasing from $2.2bn when Labor came to office, to $5.1bn next financial year - a massive increase in revenue. That massive increase in revenue has not been matched by an improvement in the core services the Territory government is responsible for, nor has it been used to prepare the Territory for the proverbial ‘rainy day’. A prudent government would have salted away some of the windfall revenue this Labor government has received in the past decade - just some of it. It is in the times of plenty preparation for the inevitable lean times is made. That is when you prepare. The Territory’s debt could have been greatly reduced, perhaps even eliminated, had Labor simply saved the unexpected GST revenue, allocated funds on the basis of needs, followed through with strict controls, and matched outcomes to expenditures. This approach would address the serious social needs of our community, and provided savings - a different approach, a different attitude. A hard-headed approach to policy decisions has come a distant second to cynical, political manoeuvring.
This Labor government is a stranger to tough decisions. It has no coherent or comprehensive plan for the Territory now or into the future. As a consequence, we are forced into borrowing against the future simply to pay the weekly expenses. Labor is running the Territory government on tick.
The Chief Minister and Treasurer calculate they will be long gone when their irresponsible spending will need to be paid for. Their lazy attitude towards money has, is, and will cost the Territory dearly. Consider the SIHIP debacle. The Territory government’s disastrous miscalculation of the actual cost of delivering housing to the bush resulted in the federal government drastically underfunding SIHIP. Let us not forget the Territory government calculated $672m would pay for 750 new homes, 230 replacements, 2500 housing upgrades, essential infrastructure to support the new houses, and town camps living condition improvements. Having misled the federal government as to the cost of delivering housing to the bush, the Henderson government then failed to oversee expenditure of the money provided for SIHIP. As a result, some 70% of the funds for housing were being spent on everything other than building houses. Hence, $50m of SIHIP money was squandered before a single house was constructed.
Indeed, I am told SIHIP remains so inefficient that contracted employees are sitting idle in remote communities because they cannot get access to the houses they are contracted to repair - more money wasted. This continual waste has already resulted in the infrastructure component of the program being shifted to other budget lines. Well-placed sources believe the original SIHIP program may eventually cost $2bn by the time it is completed. The money will now have to be found elsewhere, and the federal government will be demanding Territory Labor pay for its mistakes.
The effects are also being felt in the communities, where the new SIHIP houses will be smaller and less suited to bush conditions than promised; where the rebuilds or refurbishments will be diminished in scope and quality; where infrastructure necessary will be greatly delayed - perhaps never delivered. What a stuff-up! What is the situation now? What is the explanation from this Labor government? How much has SIHIP spent? How many new houses has it delivered? How many refurbishments or renovations? Do not look for honest answers in this devious government’s budget papers; not a word from the Treasurer about the progress of SIHIP - not a single word. I note the Housing Minister claims Budget 2010-11 provides $354m as a part of SIHIP. Well, that is more than half the total SIHIP budget. Are we going to see 375 new houses built in 2010-11? Hardly! That is just another exercise of inflated accounting.
Last year in my budget reply, I proposed a study of the cost of providing hospital services at Royal Darwin Hospital. Had the Henderson government followed my suggestion, it would have been in a much better position to understand the long-term implications of the health agreement it signed at COAG. It would have the necessary information to understand short, medium and long-term funding pressures on our health system. It would have provided vital information on the financial import of the COAG deal.
The government signed an agreement which will eventually require Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals to provide services at what is called a national efficient price. If Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals fail to achieve that national efficient price, the shortfall will come from the Territory’s budget. A competent government would know the relative cost between services in its hospitals and the national average. The Henderson government does not, and is desperate to hide the significance of this fact. This disturbing fact emerged in a briefing between my Health spokesman, Matt Conlan, and the Health Department last week. The study I proposed would have given them that understanding.
Instead, we have an agreement based more on hope than hard facts. We have no idea how the Territory’s budget will be impacted within just five years. No idea, no plans, no timetable, should be the motto of this government. Look at the Treasurer’s prediction in her last budget reply. She claimed the Australian economy was in recession when it was not. Indeed, the Australian economy never entered the recession this Treasurer said we had to have. The Treasurer also predicted the Territory’s economy would buck the global economic trends and forecast a growth rate of 2% in 2009-10. Well, wrong again - wrong. The Territory economy has flatlined, growing at 0.4% in the last 12 months. Yet, as recently as February this year, the Treasurer repeated in this parliament her regular boast about delivering a strong economy. In part, this flatlining economy is the result of the slow progress of capital works projects. This is a government in love with the big announcement. It is a shame it is not as devoted to ensuring the touted projects are completed in a timely manner.
In 2008-09, the Treasurer and Infrastructure minister, Delia Lawrie, announced in the budget the government had allocated $870m for infrastructure spending. The revote out, according to last year’s Budget Paper No 4, was $485m. That means considerably more than half the $870m promised, advertised and boasted about in that budget was not spent. Taking into account the final total capital works budget estimates, the government’s actual spend on infrastructure during the 2008-09 financial year was $355m. Did we see the media release, did we see the glossy brochures, did we see the boast? No.
The infrastructure spend in the 2009-10 budget was $1.3bn and, according to yesterday’s budget papers, the revote for 2009-10 was $842.6m. It is worth remembering a proportion of that money which was not spent last financial year was rolled over from the previous budget, and the budget before, and so it goes on.
Some examples – let us start with Katherine and the Labor government’s proposed bypass. Has a stretch of road ever been so well named? The plan was to divert a section of the Stuart Highway to ensure road trains which currently rumble through the main street are diverted around the town. A sum of $10m was allocated by the Treasurer in 2009-10. The Katherine bypass has truly bypassed the people of Katherine.
Anyone who knows this government also knows their capacity for clichs, spin and rhetoric. This brings me to one of their favourite nouns –‘lifestyle’
As part of adding to the great Territory lifestyle, the Labor government promised, during the 2008 election campaign, to upgrade the Palmerston boat ramp. Two years on, what do we have? A concept plan, plenty of chitchat by various ministers, but little enhancement to our lifestyle. In fact, on the weekend, Fisheries minister, Kon Vatskalis, issued yet another media release which made a passing reference to the boat ramp enhancement. Top End fishers just want it built; they want you to do what you said you would - just build it.
Alice Springs has also borne the bitter chill of the government’s neglect. The revote for Alice Springs Hospital now stands at $38m; and when it comes to tourism, the government has turned its back on the centre with its abandonment of the Mereenie Loop project, first promised by Labor in 2001; 2010, still no loop. That is nine years of promises which have not been fulfilled; which brings us to the government’s astonishing, colossal announcement of a $1.8bn infrastructure budget in financial year 2010-11. As I have already discussed, in 2008-09, 30 years after self-government, the infrastructure budget was $870m; last year, it was $1.3bn; this year it is out to $1.8bn.
We can be assured of two things: a large proportion of that money will come straight from the Commonwealth’s coffers, and a large proportion will not be spent in the next financial year. However, you have the headline, you have the boast; you have the big announcement. You may consider, in the scheme of things, delays are not overly important. I ask you to think again. Let us look at this in the context of the events of the past few weeks. The sad disregard shown by this government for Darwin Harbour, and the blind eye it has turned to ongoing pollution in our harbour is a sorry manifestation of this government’s love of the big announcement. In other words, this government, this Treasurer, writes cheques its budget does not honour.
In the 2008-09 budget, the Treasurer promised to spend $59.6m for, and I quote:
A sizeable chunk of that $59.6m, $35m in fact, was to be spent on an overland covered conveyor to improve bulk ship loading operations and environmental and traffic safety. Most of that money still has not been spent. This worthwhile infrastructure would have served to reduce pollution in Darwin Harbour, assist industry to go about its business in an environmentally sustainable manner and, in the process, added to the infrastructure capacity of our work. As a consequence of the failure to spend that money, copper concentrate has been polluting Darwin Harbour, and government ministers have been buck passing responsibility for their failures onto senior bureaucrats, instead of taking responsibility themselves.
I quote the Environment minister, Karl Hampton, on Stateline last Friday night: ‘… the buck doesn’t just stop with me …’. It never does with Henderson government ministers. Failure to spend the money when it should have has cost Darwin Harbour dearly. That failure was part of a fortnight of revelations of the complete breakdown of environmental protection which forced the Henderson government into announcing more environment inspectors with NRETAS. The opposite is …
Mr Henderson: Tell us about Mt Todd.
Mr MILLS: Getting desperate now, mate. You are just going to have to cope this. Of course the opposition welcomes additional officers protecting our environment. We condemn the ministerial failures and deceptions which preceded that decision. I saw the Chief Minister claim on Stateline the fact people were reporting pollution was an indication as to how well the whistleblowers act was working. It sounds like an episode from Yes, Minister. This time it was the Chief Minister resorting to a silly, amateurish deception when confronted with the failures of his environmental protection regime. The whistleblowers on pollution of Darwin Harbour went to the media in spite of the act. The whistleblowers act makes their actions illegal. These anonymous people risked their careers.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: They risked their careers, their financial security, to protect something that belongs to all of us; the environment. In fact, the Chief Minister’s whistleblowers law threatens these people with imprisonment. The Chief Minister has the hide, the audacity, to claim - we know Darwin Harbour is being poisoned with copper concentrate as an example of how well his laws are working. What a disgrace! This is another example on how little the truth means to the Henderson government.
Today, I have a budget announcement which does not involve expenditure, does not require greater debt for Territorians. The Country Liberals would amend the whistleblowers act to allow people to go the media, and to parliamentarians, when they believe the health of individuals, or the environment, are at risk of imminent harm. Indeed, such a measure would probably be a revenue raiser, given the increase in fines the government recently announced. It would also save money mopping up the failures of government into the future. It would also protect those brave employees who alerted the media to a completely dysfunctional child protection system in the Northern Territory.
It would protect the member for Arnhem, the former Minister for Child Protection, who threatened to hunt down and prosecute. It would protect those children who are placed in harm’s way because the system does not work; because the government is more concerned about protecting its image than protecting the safety of children. It would recognise our public servants are often best placed to inform the public and politicians on what is happening. It would improve our system of government.
Whilst I am considering the issue of child protection, I am compelled to refer to a media release from the latest Child Protection Minister, the member for Casuarina. On 19 March, the minister stated, in a media release: ‘Since 2005, the NT government has increased the child protection budget by around 117%’. It has not; it has not! In 2005-06, Child Protection Services had a budget of $24.5m. In 2009-10, Child Protection Services had a budget of $25.3m. That is a 3% increase.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Indeed in 2009-10, the budget was reduced by $500 000. How did the minister come up with 117%? He did this by adding up the entire family and children services budget; by including expenditure which has nothing to do with child protection. What a simple-minded deception.
It is moments like this when I wonder how the member for Nelson feels about propping this sham of a government. He must also despair, as do we, at government policies which have created a housing crisis in the Northern Territory. ABS figures this week show established house prices jumped by 17.5% in the last 12 months; 17.5%. Darwin was second only to Sydney in the median house price of established houses in the September quarter.
Darwin is a great little capital, however when housing in a town of 120 000 people is more expensive than all but one of the nation’s capital cities, there has been a terrible policy failure. It is not as though we have a land shortage in the Territory. In 2000, the median dwelling price in Darwin was $179 800. It had increased to $540 000 by 2009. How many teachers, nurses, posties, public servants are paid triple what they were at the start of the decade? The skyrocketing price of houses is placing a terrible burden on young Territorians hoping to get into the housing market.
We also have the highest rents in Australia. Families have been squeezed out of the Territory by the cost of housing. What a disgraceful legacy Labor will leave Territorians. Make no mistake; compound policy failure by the Labor government has created the Territory’s housing crisis. Land release fell dangerously, disastrously below demand. In 2007, the Treasurer claimed 300 housing blocks was the requirement for the Darwin region. Last year’s budget dramatically overhauled that figure, lifting it to 1700 per annum. This year’s budget says the estimate to June 2011 is 2230. Last year, the Territory Labor government produced a pamphlet called Housing the Territory. It states between 2009 and 2013 the Territory government plans to release 6400 housing lots in Darwin and Palmerston. On the basis of the latest Treasury estimates, that is thousands of housing lots short of what is necessary. It does not even match the 8500 lots needed under last year’s budget estimates.
However, this government’s failure goes even deeper. Expensive government propaganda promised 490 housing lots were going to be released in Bellamack, Johnston and Rosebery Park during 2009. I live in Palmerston; that figure has not been achieved. This incompetent government could not even meet its own totally inadequate targets. Every homebuyer, every person renting is paying the price of that profound failure. Having driven up the price of housing to astronomical levels, the government continues to tinker at the edges of the problem with ineffective policies, overwhelmed by the huge increase in the price of housing.
Stamp duty relief is help for homebuyers, but changes are swamped by the increase in the price of homes. A 17% increase would add $85 000 to the price of a $500 000 home. That is the reality facing young homebuyers. A year passes as you desperately try to save enough to put a deposit on a house, and you find at the end of that year you need an extra $85 000. At the same time, rents rise faster than your boss will ever increase your wages.
While I applaud measures which will assist people in buying their homes in this overheated and unaffordable housing market, I also applaud measures to address highly inefficient taxation. What I do take exception to are measures which will, ultimately, see little real gain. Have they not learned anything since coming to power 10 years ago? Adding further demand pressures on a tight supply market can only have one effect – higher prices for houses. What we needed from the government was an announcement such as the one yesterday on stamp duty relief - a real and tangible mechanism to address the matter of supply. That is the issue. However, there was none of substance. The housing market is in a shocking state. It is so out of alignment we have massive pressures like the INPEX project coming, and you cannot fix these problems with a media release; with a one-off item. You have to completely rethink what you have done and put in place the necessary immediate actions, lay the foundation for the change, and have the next pieces ready to put into place.
The Country Liberals have developed real policies to bring real hope to Territorians trapped in Labor’s housing crisis. We have proposed the Territory Housing Land Corporation to streamline residential development, and enable first homebuyers to enter the market at a greatly discounted price. We have announced the Living the Dream Policy which will allow families to jointly purchase homes at a median value with the Territory government. We have put forward a plan for a transitional housing village to ease the desperate plight of the many families who, through no fault of their own, find themselves homeless as a result of Darwin’s housing crisis.
Today, I announce another cog in a comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis in the Territory. A Mills government will implement a supported housing policy which will provide coordinated care for families with complex needs. We have families living in public housing with members suffering from mental health problems, drug and alcohol addiction, and severe behavioural issues. They make life a nightmare for people living with them, and their neighbours, and frequently vandalise their homes which consumes a great deal of police and Territory housing resources. The current systemic tolerance of people misbehaving in public housing must end.
Our supported housing policy would shift these families into newly-constructed emergency housing, and provide them with professional help and support to deal with these profound social problems. This will provide families with a chance to break the destructive cycle of acute dysfunction currently being passed on from one generation to the next. Very strict conditions will apply to living within this accommodation. The focus will be on improving how these families operate so they can function in the wider society. The removal of dysfunctional families from public housing will greatly improve living conditions for other tenants of Territory Housing. It is unfair so many people are forced to live with deeply troubled, disruptive and abusive neighbours. It will improve the availability of existing public housing, and offer these struggling families a chance to change their lives for the better.
Improving the plight of children trapped in dysfunctional families is an important consideration in the development of this policy.
The Henderson government has put these issues in the too hard basket. It is deeply reluctant to evict families from public housing, no matter how bad their behaviour. By failing to provide an alternative program, the government is obliged to ignore the many instances of appalling behaviour by tenants in public housing. This policy failure has allowed public housing hell holes to develop. This does not protect children, and means they are more likely to follow their parents into lives on the fringes of society. I want to break that vicious cycle.
If successful, the benefits will flow to the wider community. Kids at risk of ending up in prison in later life must be given an increased chance to become productive members of our society. The breakdown in law and order in the Territory must be tackled at many levels. A Mills government will spend $3m in acquiring the land, $10m on headworks and facility development, and provide $850 000 per annum for ongoing capital investment. Recurrent expenditure providing the professional staff, administrative support and security for the project will be $15.3m.
The profound failure of residential land release also points to the need for improved land use planning in the Northern Territory. There has been a lack of strategic thinking regarding development of our major urban centres. This lack of strategic planning has impacted upon industrial development, stifling economic growth.
Today, I am announcing my commitment to the creation of the Northern Territory Planning Commission to provide strategic advice to the Territory government. The Planning Commission will be comprised of 12 members with a diverse set of skills, and responsible for guiding urban, industrial and agricultural development across the Northern Territory. It will establish consistent and objective planning principles, set appropriate land use objectives, forecast future transport needs for road, rail, sea, air, and identify gaps in the existing planning process.
I envisage this Planning Commission to be comprised of architects, demographers, economists, environmental scientists, urban planners and other specialists. It will bring rigor and independence to this critical area of government responsibility. I heard the interjection, member for Nelson. It will remove planning from the whim of a minister and enhance the departmental effort. The Planning Commission will be allocated an additional $800 000 by a Mills government.
I also reaffirm my commitment to my $27m Early Education Policy announced earlier this year: the way forward - early education for a strong future, will see the introduction of an expert panel on literacy and numeracy; literacy and numeracy assessments for Year 1 students; after-school literacy and numeracy programs; additional classroom support for teachers; the introduction of multidisciplinary behavioural management teams; more support for school counsellors, and assistance for COGSO to access government grants. Without a significant overhaul of the Territory’s education system, our students will not get the best possible chance to achieve results in line with their counterparts interstate.
Much said in this House is let go through to the keeper due to the nature of robust debate. However, I wish to pick up the following statement made by the Education minister. He has described our early years of education policy as a ‘flimsy education policy’. It is now obvious to those opposite, including the Chief Minister, that they have failed to grasp the fact this announcement is one of many in respect to education; this one specifically targeted at urban schools and at the early years. I find it curious a government which has presided over a continuation of the worst education outcomes in the country, has delivered nothing tangible to address the very real need in our early years.
This is a government which has denigrated our focus on getting early support to our kids, our schools and our teachers, as flimsy and not worthy of support. Yesterday’s budget confirms the Henderson government is content to let education standards in the Territory drift ever further behind the rest of the country.
Next year’s budget is about the same as this financial year. The NAPLAN results confirmed parents’ worst fears about the standard of education in the Territory, and the Henderson government’s response is to flatline the funding. Once again, the Treasurer could not bring herself to offer this simple truth in her budget speech; that was missing. I believe the government should be working hard to identify areas where it can reduce expenditure; however, it simply beggars belief the government has allowed Education’s funding to stagnate. We cannot afford to ignore the immense challenges that confront our education system. We should have seen a substantial investment in programs to improve education outcomes in the Territory; we have not.
Today I reiterate the Country Liberal’s policy of keeping Berrimah gaol, and instituting a different system of Corrections. A new prison is a complete waste of money. It perpetuates the current approach to Corrections which has not delivered the necessary changes to law and order. It is more than two years since this white elephant was announced. Should the government proceed with this waste of money, the cost of a new prison is likely to top $400m. That money could be so much better spent on prison farms and programs to reduce the rate of repeat offending in the Territory. The substantial up-front savings between a new prison and a system of prison farms could be used to reduce this government’s exploding debt. The long-term financial benefits of moving repeat offenders out of the corrections systems and into productive lives are enormous. Productive lives are facilitated by a good education, good housing, and having good examples.
I also reiterate a Mills government would reduce the number of political advisers burdening the public purse. We need more substance and less spin from government. The ranks of overpaid political minders will be thinned by a Mills government. A Mills government would also initiate a budget line by budget line, program by program analysis of the effectiveness of government spending. That is the very least you would expect from a government announcing collective deficits of $720m, and total liabilities of $4.8m. However, the Treasurer’s complete silence in yesterday’s budget speech about reduced spending indicates the government did not bother with systemic analysis of spending. It should have searched every corner of government spending for fat, for waste, for failure. It could not be bothered establishing a committee to prune unnecessary government expenditure. After nine years, there is no doubt wasteful programs have found comfortable measures in the government’s spending programs. These programs continue to exist at the expense of future government initiatives.
In summary, Territorians are saddled with a self-satisfied government which lacks the necessary imagination, courage, and drive to manage the challenges of governing the Territory.
Madam Speaker, we have a government which has little to offer beyond empty words and phrases. This is a big debt, small ideas budget that fails to charter course to an improved Northern Territory. Territorians deserve a better deal than they are getting from those occupying the Treasury benches.
Members: Hear, hear!
Debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, were you wishing to continue? You had about 20 seconds, so if the Leader of Government Business could move that you have an extension of time to allow you to complete your …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the Chief Minister be given an extension of time so he can finish his comments pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is good to see the love is being shared around in extending time. I did it several times yesterday.
Mr Elferink: After such a heart warming speech I could not but try to help you.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, John.
Moving back to the debate on Women’s Policy, and listening to the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply, I have to challenge the Leader of the Opposition with his rallying against the deficit position in this year’s budget. He did not state how many women he would sack from the public service to bring the budget back into surplus.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: How many women in the Department of Local Government? How many women work in the Department of Local Government?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, honourable members. I know it is a very exciting morning, but perhaps the Chief Minister could be listened to with somewhat more quietness.
Mr HENDERSON: This is a debate about a budget. Yes, we have a deficit. The opposition is attacking the deficit. He did not, in any way, establish in his budget reply where he would find the savings. He talked about government programs being wasteful. Step up to the plate, show the courage of your convictions, say which programs you would cut, how many people you would sack and, regarding the debate about Women’s Policy, how that would affect women sacked in the Department of Local Government. I am not sure of the gender breakdown, but you said you would abolish the Department of Local Government.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: There was interjection from the opposition in debate recently that they do not do anything. These are people’s lives you are playing with, Leader of the Opposition. You cannot be genuine about what you would do, where the axe would fall, and who it would affect. That is the challenge for the Leader of the Opposition. Where is his axe going to fall, how many people, and who, are going to be affected? In particular, given this debate, how many women are going to lose their jobs and not be able to provide for their families under the axe the Leader of the Opposition would swing through government to return the budget to surplus? That is the challenge for the Leader of the Opposition.
Going back to my comments on reducing domestic violence, the vast majority of those domestic violence assaults were attributed to alcohol-related offences. This is an ongoing complex issue government is focused on, and I commend the police in the very substantial effort they are applying at the moment in targeting repeat perpetrators of domestic violence. The number of women reporting is increasing There is yet to be analysis applied to how much of that increase is in relation to mandatory reporting, however we will keep an eye on that.
I share, with the member for Araluen, her abhorrence of domestic violence. It is an absolute blight on our community in the Territory, and we will continue to work to reduce and, in an ideal world, eliminate those serious assaults which, tragically, occur every day in the Northern Territory.
My colleague, the Minister for Women’s Policy, articulated many initiatives we, as a government, have undertaken and continue to focus on. There has been significant input on our side of politics - and this is not meant to be politically offensive to the opposition; we have a significant number on our benches. Five of our 11 are women, making a very substantial and substantive contribution to Caucus and Cabinet. We have been the government which has appointed, absolutely, through merit. For the first time, two of our eight judges are women, which is something that has happened under a Labor government. Both those appointments were on merit, and it is good to see that glass ceiling is being broken on the bench. More magistrates are women, I believe, than has been the case previously in the Territory.
There is a heap of scholarships and programs I have in my notes, however my colleague has spoken about most of those.
I know my predecessor was very keen on increased investment in women’s sports and infrastructure. That has happened, and I pay tribute to Clare Martin, the previous Chief Minister. She doggedly pursed a new home for Territory netball. That has been completed at a cost of $6.2m, and we have more women competing at national sporting competitions than ever before. That was a very specific and targeted investment. We have developed a number of programs to support remote Indigenous women participating in sport, such as shire softball competitions, etcetera.
We could talk across all areas of community and society regarding the very significant and important role women have in our community, our society, and our business community.
One of the events I enjoy attending every year - and I do not think I have missed one since we came to government in 2001 – is the annual Telstra Business Woman of the Year Awards. That is always a really inspirational event, particularly because it is targeted at women in small business. To hear those stories of women who have had the courage to step up alone into the very complicated, rough and tumble world of small business, as well as juggling a family at home, is inspirational. I enjoy that event, and enjoy talking to women who have succeeded and, importantly, when they become a winner, become a mentor for other women entering business. All the women who have won those awards have been very generous with their time in mentoring and supporting other women who are stepping into business. There is well established network in the Northern Territory which encourages and supports women entering small business.
I conclude on a positive, because we need to be positive and thank Telstra for their support for women in business and the annual awards. That does show the top end of town can be serious when they want to in supporting women in business. Congratulations to Telstra.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have to deal with some of the issues raised by the Chief Minister. First, I will go to the issue of domestic violence as a proportion of the overall assaults in the Northern Territory. I am astonished when I read police report after police report - I am talking about the annual reports – which state, proportionally, according to the offences against the person, the number of domestic violence assault rates are dropping. Each year it has gone from about 52% to 51%, from memory, to the most recent report of 47%. The Chief Minister tells us there is an increasing proportion of domestic violence because women are more comfortable reporting domestic violence offences. Yes, more women are reporting domestic violence; what is not occurring is a smaller number of assaults in the Northern Territory.
The reason a proportionally smaller number of women are reporting domestic violence every year is because there is, overall, an increasing number of assaults which do not relate to domestic violence; some 80% since the change of government. We have seen the assault rate increase, and a proportional drop. This does not reconcile with the Department of Justice crime statistics, which consistently support the Chief Minister’s assertion that domestic violence is proportionally higher than is being reported by the police, and forms more than 50% of the overall number of assaults reported.
The part that surprised me, when I discovered how this anomalous situation occurred, particularly when you consider the base set of data is exactly the same as that obtained by the Department of Justice and Police department - it comes from exactly the same source - is how you can get these anomalous outcomes in domestic violence reporting. It turns out the police reporting includes certain offences which are not included in the Department of Justice system, because the Department of Justice system only turns its attention to assaults, including aggravated assaults.
I find it fascinating the Northern Territory government would produce, from the same set of data, two different figures, champion women, when, in the domestic violence figures, they do not include rape. I do not understand that because you end up with a set of numbers producing an outcome which is different, depending on which department is running the figures. We find this interesting situation in the Northern Territory where, in an effort to bump up the number of domestic violence offences being reported as a proportion of overall offences, the government chooses to not count rape as a crime. I find that a very grim approach by this government.
Let us discount rape. Let us not talk about rape, where the vast majority of victims are women, because we have to get the domestic violence numbers up to suit our agenda. That is an unhealthy situation, and is what happens when spin and rhetoric overtake common sense and logic.
I pick up on the Chief Minister’s comments regarding the Department of Local Government, which we have said, should we take over government, we will wind up. They think they can run this fear program: ‘Oh, they are going to sack all the women’. Not true, not true. Anyone who says that is lying. I will tell you why: because we have already announced that would be a redeployment approach. The interjections and comments I hear from the Chief Minister repeatedly are we would sack these people - we have to keep the department going so we do not sack these people. We are not going to sack them, we will redeploy them; find other places for them to go.
More importantly, the argument from this government is you have to keep a department going because it is there. That is the logic of the argument. The department is there; you cannot get rid of it. A department has to actually do something. Whilst I know the public servants work very hard in the department to deliver whatever it is to satisfy the government - and I am not in any way reflecting on their individual efforts - from a policy perspective, you have a department which does two things: one, it provides certain forms of assistance to local governments; two, it provides a regulatory structure, a police force, if you like, on local government. As has been explained in this House, those functions can be done differently, and from a different source.
We have now restructured local government in the Northern Territory and have a series of shires in place. Nearly every square inch of the Northern Territory comes under the governance of some local government authority. They seem to be answerable to a department, and the Local Government Act does load into it some answerability. The Local Government Act distinguishes between municipal and more remote shires, and creates different structures of reporting and accountability. However, if you have a council like the Darwin City Council, or the Alice Springs Town Council, or the Katherine Town Council, the Department of Local Government does not have that much to do with them; they govern themselves, as is correct.
The Department of Local Government would help many of the small, remote communities and community government councils before the amalgamation of these councils into shires. That has now changed, and we have a series of shires which have governance models in place. If you have this transition to shires which have governance models in place, what is the function of the Department of Local Government? To help these shires? LGANT can do that. Let us give LGANT the administrative assistance component and a grant to do that so they can employ the best experienced staff.
In that model, you would have an association answerable to its own membership, rather than the government residing over the top like some tribal chief. We would create a compliance environment which would still have an auditing role; it would be attached to the minister’s office, or some such structure. It may even have its own statutory structure, or become a statutory authority. Those details will be worked out. You can then rely on local government to do what it has to do in service delivery. If there is a breach of requirements, then the auditing process put in place can answer that.
This whole process of reform was supposed to remove the layers of bureaucracy from the local government process. This government would argue, to protect the women and men who work in this department, we have to change nothing, do nothing. We make no decisions as a government because we might be redeploying public servants to other areas where they are needed.
I reject completely the assertions by the Chief Minister, and other members opposite. They only want to do what they did at the last election campaign - scare people rather than talk about the principles of good governance for the women of the Northern Territory - the principles of good governance you would hope a government of their ilk would adhere to. They want to run fear campaigns through the public service, and they did it the last time. They were not honest public servants last time, and they will not be honest this time. Because of their dishonesty, they find themselves in a situation where public servants do not trust what they say.
A clear example of how the public service is feeling betrayed is the 2.5% pay cap this government has as policy with the EBAs. That is what they factored in for growth in public sector employee expenses this year. They are still thinking about that 2.5% pay cap. Moreover, this government is making it tougher for families because, as a result of the 2.5% pay cap, it is also introducing an expenditure regime, according to them, which will drive CPI up to 3.1%. I wonder how the government will explain to a public servant with two-and-a-half or three kids around her ankles while in the aisles at Woolworths or Coles, while she is trying to feed her family, she has received a pay cut under this government. With a 2.5% pay rise, that public servant will not catch up to the government’s own predicted CPI. They are cutting the wages of public servants in the real world, and that includes the women mentioned in this statement.
The government acknowledges there are more women coming through the system, and one of the problems with the glass ceiling is many women do not advance as far as their male counterparts. You have a large body of women at the lower end of the public service who are going to be worst affected by this pay cut, because they have families to look after. Unfortunately, in many families, the parental role falls onto the shoulders of women.
You would think the government would show some sensitivity and give assistance to the women of the public service. They come into this House with a puff piece which is so soft and fluffy I thought of replacing my bed with it and sleep on that; it would be more comfortable. It offers the women of the Northern Territory very little apart from puffery. This government has shifted its priority on women from the Chief Minister’s portfolio to somewhere else. It is a junior minister’s portfolio.
There used to be a Women’s Advisory Council, a government funded and sponsored body answering directly to the Chief Minister on women’s issues, made up of women drawn from all parts of the community. Where do I find their annual reports nowadays? I do not. Why not? They do not exist; this government cut the funding. This government waxes lyrical about how much they care for women, how much they believe in women’s issues in the community, however, they cut the source of women’s advice to government. Moreover, as far as the female public servants are concerned, they are going to get a pay cut under this government at the next budgetary cycle, and why is that? This government failed to contain public service growth at the outset.
I have never argued for public service cuts. This side of the House has never threatened, or in any way suggested, we were going to sack anybody. The line they trot out is not true; it is part of the fear machine.
The unrestrained growth in the public service has brought financial pressure onto this government where they can no longer afford to pay women in the public service, who have to feed their kids, decent wage increases. That is the problem they have built for themselves. They have increased the size of the public service from 14 000 to 18 500. If they had increased the size of the public service from 17 000 to 17 500, for argument sake, over the same period, they would have sufficient funds to pay their public servants and not threaten women with the pay cuts because this government cannot afford to pay their female public service staff.
That hangs over them like a thunder cloud. Their worst failing of all is their irrational attempt to cover up on this and cover up on that, to deal with this issue and deal with that issue; to relentlessly blow the budget. Every single year expenditure far outweighs - and I am talking about appropriation expenditure, not just SPPs and NPs - what is budgeted because that is their piggy bank, and they reach into it every time: ‘We are going to spend money on this, we are going to spend money on that’, with very little thought for planning. It is all trotted out on a whim.
Whilst we give them $40m each year to deal with contingencies they did not predict, they spend much more than that; they drain that. They spend it every time they go into Cabinet and feel like covering up on something which might be politically bad for them. Rather than governing, they respond. It is like watching Pavlov’s dog in governance. They get one stimulus over here, they respond with a predicable stimulus over there. It is like a frog’s leg. If you stick an electric probe into a frog’s leg it twitches. That is not governance. Governance is considered thinking, learning when to jump, how to jump, how far to jump, and what you are trying to achieve. That is the difference between the two sides of this House – that side of the House has the frog’s legs approach.
Madam Speaker, should the people of the Northern Territory choose to give the Country Liberals governance after the next election - whenever that may be - I can promise they will get considered, prudent, sensible government, not something that uses its reflex nerve every time it is poked.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of representatives of the KSTL, the Konfederasaun Sindicatu Timor Lorose’e which is the peak union body in Timor-Leste, the equivalent of the ACTU, participating in a study tour in Darwin. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the report for the Department of the Legislative Assembly pursuant to paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of the Administrative Arrangements, November 2007, which contains annual schedules concerning government payments for each member for satellite and mobile phones, and the annual schedule of member travel at government expense for the year 2009.
I also table a letter from the Chief Minister summarising the smart phone expenses for each minister, and also the Leader of the Opposition during the 2009 calendar year.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 4 May 2010.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I fully support the budget handed down by the Treasurer yesterday in this House. It is all about delivering now for Territory families and building the future right across this wonderful Northern Territory of ours. It is a budget crafted in very difficult financial circumstances. No Treasurer, no government, wants to preside over a deficit budget situation unless you absolutely have to. The first responsibility we have, as government, is to protect the economy and jobs in the Northern Territory. That is what we very deliberately decided to do.
We can see the extent of the success of that strategy in the budget that preceded last year - a $1.3bn capital spend which, in itself, was a record - double the previous largest capital expenditure in the Territory’s history. That protected over 3000 jobs in our economy. In the budget papers handed down yesterday, we have seen a revised final outcome for the 2009-10 financial year in GST growth of 0.4%. That meant the Territory, like every jurisdiction in Australia, survived the global financial crisis, and our economy did not go into recession when developed economies around the world headed for enormous recessions; some in Europe are still very close to almost insolvency.
The reason our economy did not go into recession, why thousands of jobs were not lost in the Territory’s economy last year, was as a direct result of our decision to go into deficit country, our decision to double the infrastructure spend across the Northern Territory by $1.3bn, and also to sign up to the Commonwealth government’s stimulus package the opposition voted against in Canberra. I know many people who work in and around the construction industry in the Northern Territory and, as the GFC hit, as access to bank finance dried up, most of the construction workforce in the Northern Territory did swing into those government tenders and government jobs. Many people are saying thank goodness for the stimulus package from the Commonwealth because we would not have had any contracts, we would not have had any jobs.
You can see through those budget papers that, if the opposition had been in government, and if, as is their stated policy, they did not go into deficit and maintained at least a budget neutral position, our economy would have gone into recession, thousands of jobs would have been lost, and they have compounded that in their budget reply today. The Leader of the Opposition has basically stated he would wipe out $4.8bn of debt over the four year period we are predicting to accumulate that level of debt.
That equates to 6000 public service jobs, and he cannot have it both ways. He cannot attack the government for going into deficit and then not articulate a strategy from the alternative government on how they would bring the budget back into neutral, or back into surplus. He has to articulate that strategy. He has no credibility in attacking the government unless he has an alternate plan, and he has no plan. He has no plan to protect jobs, no plan to create jobs, and when he talks about the deficit, he is talking about one of two things - taking an axe to the public service by slashing expenditure, slashing jobs, or significantly increasing taxes. It is the only way he can reduce the deficit. He has not, and he has failed in his duty as a leader today to clearly articulate what he would do if faced, as Chief Minister or as Treasurer, with a massive and unexpected - totally unexpected - collapse in government revenues. That is the real test of leadership, and he has squibbed that today.
The budget has been roundly applauded, particularly by business groups across the Territory. Chris Young, from the Chamber of Commerce had a long interview with Daryl Manzie this morning. I quote from a question regarding the budget:
For the Leader of the Opposition to criticise us for going into deficit, he has to articulate what areas of government expenditure he would cut to the tune of $268m to bring the budget back into surplus. Chris Young, when he was asked about the level of debt the government has accumulated, stated:
The Leader of the Opposition would have to take on the business community head first with a reckless strategy to slash government expenditure. It cannot be done without axing, if not thousands of public sector workers, thousands of jobs in the private sector, where the opposition would pull back on the capital works program to make their savings targets articulated today. The position the Leader of the Opposition has taken is totally nonsensical. He had a chance to step up, show leadership and show he had the courage of his convictions in his statements on the budget position of government to take the tough decisions. All he did today was spend more money.
There was no articulated plan for savings the Leader of the Opposition offered. He certainly has a housing fund we know would blow at least a $750m to $800m hole further into the budget. He talked about forming committees which would cost money. He had a super ghetto plan for public housing tenants which would cost tens of millions of dollars, yet he railed against going into deficit country. He completely missed the point in outlining an alternate government response and strategy to the unprecedented collapse we have seen in company taxes and consumption across Australia which has led to a significant decline in the GST pool.
I am trying to understand why the Country Liberal Party hates public servants so much. It is clear from everything said the CLP, if they took control of government, would radically attack the public service, slash jobs and reduce agency budgets in a way that would seriously impact on service delivery.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Not true.
Mr HENDERSON: I pick up on the member for Katherine because I clearly heard his interjection in Question Time yesterday where he stated under Labor the public service was bloated …
Mr Westra van Holthe: That is right. How many extra public servants have been employed since you started?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … and the CLP would deliver an efficient public service. He stated under Labor the public service was bloated, and the CLP would create an efficient public service. That is a code for slashing jobs - an absolute code for slashing jobs. They are cowards as a political party because they have failed to articulate where the cuts would come from. You cannot return the budget to surplus unless you radically slash expenditure or, radically increase taxes. That is the way it works, and they have taken the cowards’ way out by not articulating what their response would be.
The shadow Treasurer has a holy grail of budget surpluses come what may, and woe betide any public servant who stands between him and his budget surplus. I have been a minister and Chief Minister for almost nine years now, and in that time I have seen increasing attacks on public servants from the CLP. I cannot understand why. In the time I have been in government, I have seen the effort, the level of work and the passion public servants show for their jobs. They believe in providing the government of the day, no matter who that is, with professional advice, and they accept government makes decisions they do not always agree with, but they implement those decisions. Our public servants, by and large, do a magnificent job across the Territory, and many of them work extraordinary hours in supporting and implementing government policy.
I have seen the efforts of front-line fire fighters, police, nurses, teachers and many other professionals, and the dedication of health professionals doing their job. I see policy staff travelling and working extensive hours to meet the demands of the COAG process and an active federal government. I see chief executives and senior management who rarely have a week off. The budget delivered yesterday by the Treasurer is an effort of work many would not understand. Treasury officers, in the lead-up to the budget, work seven days a week and many hours a day for literally months on end to produce the budget.
On top of that, this year we have major health reform, COAG and the Henry Taxation Review to cope with. The CLP would slash at the heart of all that. They would slash and burn.
Yesterday in Question Time, the CLP shadow Treasurer focused his attack on government spending. Today, the Leader of the Opposition echoes that attack. They have signalled again and again their desire to slash the budget, slash spending, but they will not identify where. You cannot pursue the holy grail of a balanced budget, or a surplus budget, without identifying the costs
Well, we have some clues. We know exactly how they are going to do it; they told us at the start of the 2008 election. In their public sector policy issued in the 2008 election, the CLP said:
The opposition has said, in their response to the first report of the Council of Territory Cooperation, they would abolish the Department of Local Government. My advice from the minister’s office is if you took the local government part of Local Government, 70 to 80 jobs would be slashed; would be gone. Again, those are people with families, with mortgages, people who have loans to service and, contemptuously, at the flick of a pen, the opposition say that is another 75 to 80 jobs. We talk about the two areas they have explicitly said, but are trying to hide from it, they would sack staff. That is 150 to 160 people.
If they were to return the budget to surplus over the forward estimates, $4.8bn equates to 6000 jobs across the public service. That means they have to find another 5840 or 5850 jobs to go. They have identified 150 or 160. To bring the budget back into surplus over forward estimates, and/or in conjunction with that, they have to identify what additional tax measures they would put in place to raise that revenue, or what capital projects would they abandon.
We have a $1.8bn capital works project. If they abolished the entire capital works program this year, they would still have to find another $3bn. The entire capital works program $1.8bn – 3600 jobs, gone from the economy, and they are still nowhere near putting the budget back into balance over the forward estimates.
One in three public servants should be shaking in their shoes between now and the next election, wondering who is in the gun, who is in the firing line, who will lose their job if the Country Liberals hold the Treasury benches at the next election. It is not as simple as saying: ‘I am going to cut jobs. I am going to close my eyes, and I am going to hope for a better future for the Northern Territory’. That is not the way it works, Leader of the Opposition; you have to spell out a better plan. You need a better plan than, in the light of the aftermath of the global financial crisis, having some half-baked plan about building a super ghetto to house recalcitrant tenants in public housing - we know there are problems which need to be better dealt with - a half baked plan for a super ghetto with some razor wire to keep marginalised people locked away from the rest of society, or to talk about forming some committee to fast-track land release across the Northern Territory.
That was the extent of the opposition’s budget reply today. They will return the budget to balance, they will return the budget to surplus, but they will not articulate how they are going to do that. These are the challenges for the Leader of the Opposition.
There is a clear divide between the Labor government and the CLP on the management of the budget and the running of the public service. The CLP left a deficit of $130m when they lost office, despite their budget papers predicting a budget deficit of $28m. It was $130m for presentation purposes only. They also left a nett debt to revenue ratio of 61% and a nett financial liabilities to revenue ratio of 133%. The Territory was virtually bankrupt. People were leaving the Territory in droves. The only industry showing any growth was the furniture removal business, and house prices were collapsing. That is the economy we inherited in 2001. Today, we have heavy investment in both services and infrastructure and, with the budget focused on insulating the Territory from the ongoing impacts of the world’s worst crisis since the 1930s, we are providing a nett debt ratio of 26% and a nett financial liabilities revenue of 89%.
If you compare the Territory government’s position with other states, we are in a much better position than most states in the Commonwealth. But, no, the CLP does not acknowledge that; they would crash headlong into sacking thousands of Territorians. That is a stark difference, and a real picture of debt and deficit. We have the proven track record and capacity to manage this through. Not only have we had the GFC, we have also had a review of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which has seen a reduction in our share of the pool.
The outcomes announced in the Treasurer’s speech show what can be achieved with good management. We have achieved this without slashing the public service, or services, or ratchet up taxes, as proposed by the CLP. It is very clear the CLP cannot be trusted with the public service.
I turn to my departmental responsibilities of Chief Minister, and Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The Department of the Chief Minister is the principal central agency, and provides the major coordination point for the implementation of government policy. It ensures government priorities are reflected in policy, and are implemented effectively by the public sector.
The Department of the Chief Minister has several key responsibilities in addition to this coordination role. In 2010-11, the department will provide a focus on the implementation of the Territory 2030 plan, the principal strategy document of the government. This budget is the first down payment of implementing that plan. Contained within my department is a unit which ensures the priorities are being achieved, and the subcommittee of Cabinet is kept up to date on all matters. Underpinning the themes outlined in 2030 are 10 key strategies, which have already been announced. These include A Working Future - $980m committed to A Working Future strategy in the budget this year; a massive boost to infrastructure and improving the lives of people in remote parts of the Northern Territory; Greening the Territory, A Smart Territory, Housing the Territory, A Safe Territory, and others. These core strategies are well funded in Budget 2010-11.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition where he would find savings in each of these strategy areas? Which programs would you cut? How big an axe would you take to the $980m which has been allocated to A Working Future strategy?
I would like to talk about the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. The Department of the Chief Minister also coordinates and monitors the provision of services and programs to improve outcomes for Indigenous residents and visitors in Alice Springs. In 1200-11, the joint Territory and Commonwealth government-funded Alice Springs Transformation Plan will invest $17.5m to enhance social support services and implement measures to reduce homelessness. This investment of additional funds is the factor behind the increased expenditure and policy coordination within the Chief Minister’s Department. I am convinced this project will transform Alice Springs, and will change the lives of many people for many years. It is a massive investment in the community, and will see substantial change to the future of Alice Springs.
The Chief Minister’s agency also houses the Major Projects Unit, with $2.7m allocated this year. The major projects people do a great job for the Territory, being at the forefront of efforts to attract major business investments to our community.
The government is providing strong support to our vibrant multicultural community in 2010-11. The government will provide support for projects which promote cultural and linguistic diversity in the Territory through grants under the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program, with an allocation of $792 000 - maybe they will slash that budget allocation – and operational assistance to migrant and ethnic community organisations, including the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory, and the Multicultural Community Services of Central Australia.
The Charles See Kee Awards, which recognise and celebrate people, organisations and initiatives that have made outstanding contributions towards advancing multiculturalism and counteracting racism in the Northern Territory - a further $250 000 will be allocated under the Ethnic Communities Facility Development Fund Program. Members will be aware, under this program, ethnic communities can access funding for repairs and upgrades to their premises. Maybe that is a simple stroke of the pen; you can find $250 000 there, Leader of the Opposition, for the $4.8bn-worth of savings you have promised to find.
A total of $20 000 will also be made available for projects under the National Action Plan to build social cohesion, harmony and security. Previous funding under the National Action Plan has assisted the Islamic community in the Northern Territory to hold their Islamic Awareness Week, and similar projects.
The Darwin Waterfront Project, another project the CLP despised and campaigned against, has transformed 25 ha of industrial wasteland into a new playground for the community and businesses. Water recreation through the wave pool and lagoon, seaside promenades, parklands, hotels and restaurants are all fantastic aspects of the precinct, and have proven popular with Territory families and visitors. They have also provided a massive stimulus boost to our economy. A project of a couple of hundred million dollars worth of taxpayer investment leveraged nearly $800m worth of private sector investment, again, a massive stimulus to our economy.
The Darwin Convention Centre has been a tremendous success since opening, and interest in hosting national conferences and events has been increasing; $118m is allocated in 2010-11.
The Northern Territory Major Events Company is a government-owned company. The company continues to attract, develop and support special events that provide economic benefits, tourism, media and social enhancement.
My government is committed to maintaining the Territory as one the best places to live in Australia, and a diverse range of events and activities are a vital part of our commitment to the community. I had the Leader of the Opposition attack me for supporting Elton John coming to the Northern Territory. Not only would he slash thousands of jobs across the public sector or ratchet up taxes, you would not be able to have any fun in the Territory either. The promoters of these concerts will knock on the door: ‘Mr Mills, have we got a fantastic concert for you, but we need a little support to cover the increased transport cost to bring it to the Northern Territory. Elton John is very keen to come to the Northern Territory but we need support to cover the costs of bringing all the gear here’. The Leader of the Opposition will say: ‘Oh no, no, we are not allowed to have any fun in the Northern Territory. We cannot possibly support bringing big name acts to the Territory people would probably never have a chance to see. We are not going to have any fun, not have any big name acts coming to the Northern Territory, this is all a no, no. We are going to keep this budget in balance’.
I do not believe it. I cannot believe if he was Chief Minister and had an opportunity to bring Elton John to the Territory he would turn him away, and heaven help him if he did, if it got out the Chief Minister had said no to Elton John coming to the Territory. If there is an opportunity to see fantastic sporting events, fantastic concerts, the government of the day, whether it is a CLP government or the Territory government - it is not a huge amount of money, and people have fun and a great experience.
The team at Major Events do a magnificent job. They not only support events in Darwin, they support the Alice Springs Masters Games, the Arafura Games, the Territory Sports Awards, the Finke Desert Race, the V8 Supercars, which was voted as best round of the Championship series in 2008, the Barkly Muster and Goldrush at Tennant Creek, BassintheGrass, the Hottest 7’s Rugby tournament, the Mountain Bike Challenge in Alice Springs, and the Global Green Challenge, formerly the World Solar Car Challenge.
These events are across the Northern Territory and tens of thousands of Territorians enjoy them. Whilst I am Chief Minister, if I have the opportunity to bring big names to the Territory for everyone to enjoy, I will certainly do so. We will not be a Mr Kill Joy and say: ‘Sorry, Elton John, we do not think we are going to provide you with support to come to the Territory’.
Turning to Police, Fire and Emergency Services, as members would be aware; the government has made a clear and strong commitment to bolstering the resources of Police, Fire and Emergency Services over a number of years. This year, a budget of $310m is designed to continue that strong support. Members need to understand how rundown the resources of our police force were when we came to office. They did not have the numbers or the tools to do their job, they struggled and were demoralised. This Labor government has bolstered police numbers by an extra 399, including Themis police officers, since 2002. This Labor government has introduced new laws giving police the tools to do their job. This Labor government modernised our police equipment and communications, and made better use of technology such as CCTV.
I am very proud of the efforts of this government, and it is reflected in this budget. I am very proud of the efforts of our Police Force, our Fire Service officers, our Emergency Service officers and volunteers across the Northern Territory. It was great to have the opportunity to buy a few firies a beer at the May Day concert to say thank you. Our police officers were there in uniform, so they missed out. I am proud of the wonderful work our Fire Service officers do, in difficult circumstances, across the Territory. Budget 2010-11 delivers record spending for new and upgraded police stations with …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the Chief Minister be given a 10 minute extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, parliamentary colleagues. Budget 2010-11 delivers record spending for new and upgraded police stations, with $18.8m to build police stations and officer accommodation at Alpara and Imanpa supporting work in future; $3.7m to upgrade the Tennant Creek police station, and design work to commence on the new police station at Alice Springs and the Greatorex Building.
This government remains committed to neighbourhood policing - seeing police on the beat. That is why we are investing in Police Beats throughout the major shopping areas - that is where they are going to find $6m; they are going to close the Police Beats. Budget 2010-11 funds a further $6m to complete and maintain Police Beats in Alice Springs, Casuarina, Palmerston, Karama, Parap and Nightcliff. That is where they will find another $6m, so we have savings of around $166m out of the $4.8bn they need to find. We need to keep digging to find those savings. Improving remote policing - there is now a greater police presence in more remote communities than ever before. Budget 2010-11 delivers $30.6m for police in remote communities, including $27.1m for policing in 18 remote communities, a key part of A Working Future; and $2.08m to reduce substance abuse.
The government remains committed to cracking down on alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour, and this is reflected in Budget 2010-11. While some of these areas are outside my immediate portfolios, I believe it is worth noting this year we will fund $1.57m for day and night patrols and a public hotline; $1.44m for CCTV monitoring in the Greater Darwin Area, continued responsible drinking education campaigns; a stronger alcohol court to deal with problem drinkers; and $0.37m for the Palmerston Information and Referrals Office to continue antisocial behaviour intervention and care management services.
Under the CLP’s plan to sell more grog in Alice Springs there may be some revenue through increased payroll tax receipts as employers have to put more people on to sell grog; but the CLP’s plans to tackle antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related violence cannot be taken seriously until they remove that policy.
Budget 2010-11 provides an extra $3.75m to improve Fire and Emergency Services, including $1.49m to expand community fire awareness and education. Those people do a magnificent job with the awareness programs throughout the community. An extra $1.06m to continue expanding Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services, including upgrades and replacement of fire and rescue truck. Maybe that is where they could find another $1m – do not replace those fire and rescue trucks – that is $1m saved. I have saved them $167m so far. $200 000 for an extra fire fighter in Jabiru, and $1m boost per annum as part of A Working Future to expand Fire and Emergency Services in our growth towns. That is a specific project we are undertaking. There is another $1m; that is $168m out of $4.8bn worth of savings that could be offered up in a CLP plan. However, I conclude as I began.
This budget is about providing for Territory families today, and investing in the future of the Territory tomorrow. It was a deliberate decision to go into deficit to protect jobs. Without jobs people, in the most part, leave the Territory to return south and the economy loses capacity. As a result, consumption goes down, and the whole economic picture is one of spiralling decline. As Chief Minister, my government will not deliberately have a strategy which would see people thrown out of work for the sake of going into deficit for a few years, which is entirely sustainable, responsible, and supported by the business community.
I am very keen to hear, in response to the budget, the shadow ministers offer in their portfolios, where they would make the cuts. That is what I really want to hear. I want to hear them say: ‘We have a shadow Cabinet responsibility. The boss has said we are going to return the budget to balance or surplus; we need to find, over the forward estimates, $4.8bn worth of savings’. There is the challenge! If they are serious in attacking the government on the deficit and debt position, there is the challenge. The shadow ministers need to, as we do as ministers from time to time around the Cabinet table, come back with savings. You need to come up with $4.8bn worth of savings over the forward estimates otherwise no one will take you seriously. No one will take you seriously. I have been able to find, in the 30-odd minutes I have been on my feet, through my portfolio areas, $166m to contribute. It is certainly not savings I would offer up, because I believe all that expenditure is warranted; it protects jobs and delivers services for Territory families, so we decided to go into deficit.
I have given you a $166m head start, and you have $4.8bn to find over the rest of this debate. Otherwise, the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply speech stands for absolutely nothing. It shows he is not fit to lead; he has no plans for saving jobs in the Territory, and no plans to create jobs in the Northern Territory. He only has plans for the holy grail of a balanced budget.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Treasurer on her budget, and I look forward to the contribution from members opposite as to where they would find $4.8bn worth of savings, or tax increases, to put the budget back into balance over the forward estimates.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is usual in these appropriation debates we go one-on-one; obviously the opposition does not have anything to say! They have to find their savings. They are probably opening the piggy banks as we speak.
I support this bill in my capacity as Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Public and Affordable Housing, and Minister for Public Employment. Budget 2010-11 is about delivering for Territory families and investing in the growth of the Territory. It is a budget which focuses on the core priorities of this government; to grow our economy, to create jobs, and ensure the Territory remains a great place to live.
I will start with my portfolio of Education because, as outlined in our Territory 2030 strategic plan, education is at the core of improving our educational and social outcomes. We have employed an extra 330 teachers since 2002. We have a huge infrastructure program under way, and we are focused on improving education in the bush, something the CLP ignored. Not a single Indigenous child finished Year 12 in their home community under the CLP. We are putting more teachers into schools, and building new schools in these communities. Budget 2010-11 delivers a record $886m for education and training to support families and invest in the growth of the Territory. This includes a $12m injection for an extra 105 teachers and 42 support staff. Despite what the CLP claim, we will not be taking those jobs from elsewhere in the public service to maintain our employee cap.
We have always said there is a need for frontline employees such as teachers, nurses, and doctors, and we will ensure the demand is met in those very important areas. This government values our teacher workforce, and we will spend $2.8m to establish an institute for school leadership, learning, and development to provide principals and teachers with professional development opportunities and support. This includes existing funding of $800 000.
Budget 2010-11 provides $213m to build better schools, continuing this government’s commitment to upgrade every government primary and group school over four years. Schools receiving funding in Budget 2010-11 include: $6.8m to upgrade the Acacia, Henbury and Nemarluk special schools; $6.4m to upgrade Centralian Middle School in Gillen and establish a youth hub at ANZAC Hill; $5m for new student facilities at Casuarina Senior College; $1m to upgrade Sanderson Middle School; 21 schools to receive $300 000 each for important upgrades, and to improve facilities for students and staff.
Work is continuing on the $54.5m Rosebery Primary and Middle Schools in Palmerston, which will cater for 1450 students when they open at the beginning of the next school year. Budget 2010-11 provides an additional $14.1m, which is part of the $13.1m in the DET budget, for staff and operational expenses associated with Rosebery schools, including $1m for buses for students - that is the $1m in the Planning and Infrastructure budget - the remainder comes within the DET budget; 60 additional teachers, a team of principals and assistant principals, and 20 support staff; $6.8m for furniture and fit-out, computers and related infrastructure and new resources and materials. Also in Palmerston, an additional $800 000 is provided to expand and remodel the positive learning centre which works to re-engage students with high-level behavioural issues.
This government is providing $2.4m over four years to establish five Centres of Excellence in Territory senior schools, which includes existing funding of $900 000 to deliver specialist academic courses for high achieving students. The first two centres to be established in 2010 will be a science centre of excellence at Darwin High School, and a centre for health sciences at Casuarina Senior College.
Budget 2010-11 continues to support Territory families with the very popular back-to-school vouchers. Funding of $3.1m will see the continuation of $75 vouchers to parents of every Territory school-age student to help with the cost of essential school items.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs between the member for Arnhem and the member for Araluen for the period from 4 pm today until the close of this sitting day. It is signed by both the Government and Opposition Whips.
Dr BURNS: As mentioned earlier, the Territory government continues to focus on closing the gap of Indigenous disadvantage. Budget 2010-11 continues to roll out our plan to improve outcomes in the bush by providing funding to Indigenous communities under our A Working Future strategy. Schools to receive upgrades include: $17.6m from the Commonwealth to build children and family centres at Yuendumu, Gunbalanya, Maningrida and Ngukurr; $2m to upgrade Yirrkala school; $1.25m for Maningrida; $1.25m for Ntaria; $500 000 for Elliott; $2m for upgrades to six learning centres; and $400 000 for additional student counsellor office space.
With enormous increases in our participation rates with the 2009 NAPLAN testing, particularly by our Indigenous students in very remote communities, it was expected the results might be affected. We found the 2009 results very encouraging, and included some excellent highlights of Years 3 and 5 reading, and Years 5 and 9 numeracy, in particular. Boosting school attendance is a critical factor in improving results. There is no quick fix, however, we have more teachers and schools than ever to improve our education outcomes.
NAPLAN and the My School website have highlighted very remote schools that are achieving, such as Ntaria, and we are working to replicate practices and programs to achieve similar results in other remote schools. Unlike the CLP members who rubbish our Indigenous NAPLAN results, we know we can use these results to improve our educational outcomes. The CLP did not mention Indigenous students and ways to help them in their recently-announced education policy. I notice an attempt at defence from the member for Blain, the Opposition Leader. How does he explain ignoring Indigenous students and early childhood? That is an identified crucial issue. It has been identified by numerous studies, and it was a very poor attempt on his part to regain some ground in a massive oversight as the shadow Education minister.
However, I digress. I acknowledge there is a long way to go, but we are a government committed to making a change. Budget 2001-11 continues to provide funding to improve educational and training outcomes for Indigenous Territorians. It provides an additional $5.3m to enhance education and training programs in Territory growth towns; $3.5m to establish a comprehensive youth pathway service within and beyond schools; $3.6m for 20 virtual early childhood integrated service hubs and families as first teachers programs in communities. This is the government’s focus in our remote communities for early childhood.
Once again, I draw attention to the fact the Leader of the Opposition, in his education policy, completely ignored Indigenous students and early childhood development and programs. $2.5m for mobile preschools; an additional $1.2m for eight teachers in remote communities; $1.1m for child protection in schools; $900 000 for additional counsellors - an increase of eight positions since 2006-07, and an additional two since 2009-10; $200 000 for children’s services regulation; $2.2m for a going-to-school enrolment and attendance strategy, including the implementation of family responsibility agreements, funded with an additional $1.1m from 2009-10; $2.3m for student engagement programs such as Clontarf Football Academy, which will expand to a total of 11 sites, and Sporting Chance, will be include six sites; $3.1m to establish a 3 pm to 9 pm after school Indigenous language and culture initiative in very remote community schools; $1.1m for 16 full-time equivalent assistant teacher positions in the NT public sector to provide employment opportunities for local Indigenous people; $600 000 for IT expansion in remote communities; and, $120 000 for two Indigenous teacher scholarships.
Territory education is benefiting significantly from a cooperative approach with the Australian government. Leveraging Commonwealth funding of $12.4m in the 2010-11 year under the Smarter Schools Education National Partnership provides $700 000 for the establishment of a literacy and numeracy task force; $1.5m for English as a Second Language training and support for teachers; $1.5m to expand the At School pilot, using virtual schooling as a real time quality learning alternative for senior secondary students; $400 000 to establish the Quality Remote Teaching Service Unit to ensure very remote Indigenous schools are adequately staffed with quality teachers and leaders committed to providing quality education; $1.9m to consolidate and expand training and development pathways for Indigenous educators; $250 000 to pilot the use of VET and work experience programs for students in the middle years of schooling, especially Indigenous young men.
The Australian government provides the Territory with $44.7m from National Partnerships for the Productivity Places program. Combined with the Territory’s contribution of $1.3m, we were able to upgrade the skills of existing workers and provide access to qualifications for the job seekers. In particular, $2.6m to implement training programs in communities that connect Indigenous Territorians to real and sustainable local employment opportunities; the continuation of $1m a year for 10 000 apprentices and trainee commencements between 2009-12; work ready funding of $900 000 to better prepare young Territorians for apprenticeships and traineeships.
The Education budget of $886m puts in place key initiatives aligned to the Department of Education and Training’s Strategic Plan 2009-12. It supports Territory families by ensuring our schools are well resourced, while investing in the growth of the Territory through increased infrastructural works.
I move to my portfolio area of Public and Affordable Housing. The government Is releasing land five times faster than before, and Budget 2010-11 will provide more public housing and help more Territory families to either find a place to live of their own, or own their own home. In Palmerston, we will house 15 000 people over the next five years. This budget provides $32m for land services. The Northern Territory is experiencing strong economic and population growth, and this has driven up our housing market. We have mandated 15% of new land releases be set aside for affordable and public housing. We are also providing financial assistance for those Territorians who need extra help to buy a home. We are building the capacity of the non-government sector to be involved in housing solutions for Territorians in need, while continuing to improve access to housing for remote Territorians.
Budget 2010-11 delivers a record $695m for housing and accommodation. $49m of new funding over three years will deliver 150 new homes, including three seniors’ villages at Larapinta, Johnston and Malak, and 59 one and two-bedroom dwellings.
As part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, $32m will deliver 186 new units for accommodation in Darwin and Alice Springs; public, affordable and managed accommodation with the construction of 141 dwellings to be completed in the 2010-11 financial year. This is part of this government’s target of 200 dwellings either completed or under construction by the end of this calendar year.
An additional $15.2m will be rolled out for public housing repairs and maintenance, and a further $15.1m will be used to refurbish existing public housing dwellings. $4m will continue our ongoing investment in redeveloping older style complexes across the region, and $1.2m will be invested in four new homes for homeless people. Under the Social Housing National Partnership Agreement, $4.2m has been allocated to construct the Bellamack seniors’ village, providing 40 one and two-bedroom dwellings for seniors. Work is expected to begin shortly.
In the Wirrina development of Parap, $13.5m has been set aside to purchase 45 units for social housing, 35 units for affordable housing, and 10 public housing units for seniors. Construction is expected to be completed by June 2012.
Budget 2010-11 delivers tax cuts which will save first homebuyers up to $26 720; senior Territorians who qualify, $8500, and Principal Place of Residence buyers, $3500 when buying a home. The stamp duty exemption for first homebuyers increases from the first $385 000 to $540 000, saving homebuyers up to $26 730.
This government is introducing a new concession to senior Territorians and pensioner and carer concession cardholders, reducing stamp duty by $8500. In addition, the Principal Place of Resident Rebate has increased from $2500 to $3500.
Budget 2010-11 makes it easier for Territorians on low-and-middle incomes to buy their own home through the Territory government’s home loan program Homestart NT. Budget 2010-11 increases Homestart NT purchase price caps and income limits across the Territory, providing Territorians with access to 40% of the market, with mortgage repayments at no more than 30% of their income. I will say that again for members opposite: it is all about access to 40% of the market with mortgage repayments at no more than 30% of their income. That is the design of Homestart NT purchase price caps. Those caps are based on data from house and unit sales across the Territory. Home purchase price caps have been lifted by $55 000 in Darwin and Palmerston, $18 000 in Katherine, $5000 in Tennant Creek, and $85 000 in Alice Springs. I had better check that. I think it is $85 000, however, I will confirm it later.
This scheme is fully costed, unlike the CLP’s appropriately titled ‘Living the Dream’ home purchase policy. Their policy commits Territorians to a $780m black hole which will send property and rent prices through the roof; it will cost jobs. The CLP must tell Territorians what services are going to miss out to fund this policy. Will it be teachers, doctors, or public servants? We know they have already targeted public service jobs.
What I said previously was correct. In Alice Springs there has been an $85 000 increase from $300 000 to $385 000. I clarify that point.
In most jurisdictions, priority housing needs are met by the community sector. In the Northern Territory, housing and accommodation services provided by the non-government sector are limited. Budget 2010-11 will continue to provide opportunities for NGOs to build capacity in this area. The Commonwealth and Territory governments are committed to delivering new supported and managed accommodation options across the Territory. Budget 2010-11 delivers $2.7m to operate five new short-term accommodation facilities in Alice Springs and Darwin. This includes the $7.9m Percy Court transitional village project in Alice Springs which will house up to 79 people in 28 units. Also in Alice Springs, the $3.8m short-term accommodation facility at Bath Street Lodge will have a focus on renal dialysis patients, and cater for up to 40 visitors at any one time.
A $1.9m domestic violence and crisis transitional accommodation program in Malak will provide eight self-contained units accommodating up to 26 people.
Short-term visitor accommodation is also to be provided at the Alice Springs Accommodation Park. The $6.6m construction project is being funded under the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. The facility will offer up to 150 beds for short-stay visitors.
The $1.6m Catherine Booth House at Stuart Park will provide short-term accommodation and will be operated by the Salvation Army.
In addition to these facilities, an $8.1m transitional housing village is also under construction at Crerar Road, Berrimah, and will be operated by a non-government provider. This government has committed funding of $1.2m a year to support the facility, which will provide training in urban living skills for residents to move into conventional public or private housing.
Under the Street to Home initiative, Budget 2010-11 provides more than $2m to the non-government sector for projects to address homelessness.
Other smaller projects include: funding of $800 000 to the St Vincent de Paul Society to add 10 more beds to its facility at Coconut Grove for temporary accommodation for adult males, funding of $200 000 to the Mental Health Association of Central Australia for four beds in a hostel, and two one-bedroom units for people at risk of becoming homeless due to mental illness; funding of $45 000 to the Salvation Army Red Shield Hostel for a part-time case worker to work with clients at the hostel, and as an outreach program; funding of $900 000 for the YMCA to repair and upgrade the Doctors Gully Hostel. The project ensures an existing 63 rooms, which were likely to close, remain open, and makes a further 15 rooms available, plus a two-bedroom flat and a three-bedroom house.
As mentioned earlier, this government is committed to turning around Indigenous disadvantage. Budget 2010-11 continues to deliver on our remote commitments with joint Commonwealth and Territory funding of $354m to be rolled out this financial year as part of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program.
I listened with interest to the Leader of the Opposition comments on SIHIP in his budget reply. What he conveniently forgets, and wants to forget, is this is a five-year program which has a target of 750 new houses, 230 rebuilds and 2500 refurbishments. We will deliver on those commitments. It is all right to say: ‘Oh, in the first year you have done this or that, or have not done this or that’. This is a five-year program; one of the biggest infrastructure programs in remote Australia, if not the biggest, with the biggest tranche of spending in Indigenous housing ever in Australia. It needs to be recognised as such.
The Leader of the Opposition, and some of the members opposite, try to cause trouble with this program. The only way they are going to be quiet is when they see, as I have done, houses being built all over the Territory, and for us to achieve the targets mentioned over the five years of the project. That is what I am saying to the opposition.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I am glad I was not holding my breath waiting for the SIHIP houses.
Dr BURNS: Yes, whatever.
Budget 2010-11 continues to deliver on our remote commitments. As mentioned, under the Remote Indigenous Housing National Partnership Agreement, $1.7bn is available over 10 years to substantially increase public housing stocks in our Territory growth towns, and improve the quality of housing across a vast number of remote communities.
By the end of the year, 150 new homes and 1000 refurbishments and rebuilds will be completed. As of 13 April, 155 refurbishments and rebuilds were complete, and 115 were under way, seven new houses have been completed, and another 80 are under way coming into the Dry Season.
Budget 2010-11 will see the establishment of the Territory’s first affordable housing rental company to provide rental housing for low to middle income earners at below market rent. Expressions of interest have now closed, and submissions from interested proponents are under consideration. Budget 2010-11 includes additional funding for government employee housing, with $3.8m for additional staff accommodation at Gove District Hospital; $7.8m for teacher housing as part of the Australian government’s 200 extra teachers initiative; and $15.3m to construct 15 new and upgrade 60 existing government employee houses in remote communities.
This government is fully committed to achieving the vision in our Territory 2030 strategic plan that the Territory offers affordable and appropriate housing to meet the varying needs of Territorians. It is a commitment we are meeting.
I now turn to the third area of my responsibility, which is Public Employment, with the relevant agency being the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. In 2010-11, the budget for OCPE is $7.472m, a small reduction of $113 000 on the 2009-10 appropriation. This small reduction reflects the government’s desire for all agents to operate efficiently while, at the same time, ensuring we have a contemporary public service. Strategic issues facing OCPE in 2010-11 include: negotiating the new Northern Territory Public Service workplace agreements in line with the Northern Territory Public Service wages policy; finalising a review of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and subordinate legislation; implementing and evaluating policies and practices which emphasise equity, diversity and achievement of the work/life balance; developing strategies to include employment and career outcomes for Indigenous people in the public service; developing and implementing responses for both the public and private sectors in relation to the Commonwealth’s industrial relations legislation; and strengthening the merit principle for promotions and new employment.
The 2010-11 Budget will allow the commissioner to undertake his work agenda for the year, which includes: implementing the review of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act; implementing the Workforce Planning Framework that improves the quality, range, and timeliness of employee data; implementing the revised Indigenous Employment and Career Development Strategy 2010-12; negotiating five new enterprise agreements covering general employees, teachers and educators, Power and Water employees, fire fighters and medical officers.
It is going to be a very interesting year preparing the parameters for the negotiation of six new enterprise agreements in 2011-12, covering police, nurses, Port Corporation employees, marine pilots, dentists and prison officers. Developing and implementing a framework for innovation recognition and reward; developing a capability and leadership framework; formulating a service-wide response to the findings of the 2009 NTPS Employee Survey. That is much work.
It is clear from my remarks today this is a budget strongly focused on enhancing the working conditions of Territorians and improving the lives of Territory families. It is a budget which invests in our future and addresses the aims of this government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Treasurer and the Chief Minister for delivering a sustainable and responsible fiscal plan for 2010-11. I commend the Budget to the House.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): It is a great budget, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I believe the silence from the other side is recognition of that.
Budget 2010-11 delivers now for families and invests in the future of the Northern Territory. The Henderson government will continue to support Territory businesses by delivering $45m in Budget 2010-11 to make it easier to do business.
Budget 2010-11 provides funding for the Henderson government’s next generation jobs plan, Jobs NT 2010-2012. Jobs NT includes initiatives to help Territory businesses develop skilled workforces to meet the demands of growth now and into the future. The Henderson government’s jobs plan will support our growing economy and help deliver more than 10 000 apprenticeships and traineeships since 2003. Over this time, the Territory has experienced the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded, and economic growth rates which have outstripped most other jurisdictions in Australia.
Our government recognises a changing economic environment presents new challenges for businesses, including attracting and retaining skilled workers. Budget 2010-11 delivers an extra $11m over three years as part of Jobs NT by providing $5m more for Indigenous employment programs, including $1.3m for the entry-level public sector program, $3.6m for public sector apprenticeships and traineeships, with a focus on the Territory growth towns, including the introduction of a sector-wide, school-based apprenticeship program; a further $2.3m to continue incentives to employ apprentices and trainees in skilled shortage areas, or persons from a disadvantaged background. A further $4.7m will deliver targeted and flexible training connected to local remote community jobs.
In addition, Budget 2010-11 will provide $6m, with funding assistance from the Australian government through the Productivity Places Program National Partnership Agreement, for additional training places, reducing skill shortages in national priority industries and occupations. In addition, Work Wear, Work Gear and Work Ready programs continue in Budget 2010-11, with an additional $2.15m. More than 10 000 new apprentice and trainee jobs have commenced with the support of Territory government initiatives, a 57% increase since 2001. While it is important to invest in the future by developing the skills of Territorians, the Henderson government also recognises the need to look both interstate and overseas to source skilled workers to deliver now for the Territory.
The Henderson government is committed to making it easier to do business in the Territory by including $4.8m to promote business and industry development, and provide business with assistance in responding to changing economic conditions, including through the Territory Business Centre and the two other programs we have - Territory Business Growth and Business Upskills. $1.4m will go towards developing a one-stop online service for registration services for Territory businesses.
Budget 2010-11 includes initiatives to develop Territory industry, including the minerals and pastoral industries. This will see a $15.3m to boost mineral exploration, including increased geophysical surveys; $5.4m to encourage major economic development projects, and promote Asian relations and trade development; $790 000 to support the pastoral industry to develop Indigenous pastoral enterprises with the live cattle overseas export market.
Budget 2010-11 continues the Henderson government’s commitment to supporting business by cutting expenses. The Territory has the most competitive payroll tax system for small to medium- sized businesses in the country. Budget 2010-11 will continue to deliver benefits for these businesses. Our government’s tax reform strategy has delivered savings of $291m for small to medium-sized businesses since we came to government in 2001.
The Henderson government recognises the value of investing in the Territory’s future through its range of business programs. Territory business is able to take advantage of initiatives which assist them in the areas of professional and business development services, training, support, mentoring and funding programs. This initiative will include $2.58m for promoting business and industry development and growth, and providing business with assistance in responding to the challenges of current and anticipated economic conditions through the Business Upskills Program, the Territory Business Growth Program, the Territory Business Centres and October Business Month.
The Business Support Division of the Department of Business and Employment provides many services to the business community to help them continue to operate and grow their business and employ more Territorians. Services provided include training and information for new starters and established businesses through the Getting Started in Business Program, which includes a whole range of workshops. These workshops cover the basic necessities for starting a business, and lead into the Territory Business Upskills Program for the enhancement of management skills to strengthen business.
Other programs include the Territory Business Growth Program, which helps businesses develop formal business plans to provide a clear path forward and generate economic benefits for the Territory and secure employment for Territorians. The Henderson government’s Procurement Liaison Program assists businesses to address any concerns they have with the government’s procurement system, which was simplified last year to cut the red tape for private industry to access government contracts.
The delivery of business information and services across the Territory is provided through the Territory Business Centre, located in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. $1.4m in capital funding has been allocated to enhance the Territory’s national business online services. These are requirements aimed at developing a one-stop online service for Territory businesses to organise the necessary business registrations, business licenses, and to access other Australian and Northern Territory government’s services.
We have $0.4m trade support scheme, which currently assists approximately 70 Territory businesses per annum to market their goods and services to international markets. Business types include Indigenous art, mining support, tourism, cattle producers, and educational services.
The Henderson government also wants to ensure Territory business is best placed to win its share of work from the significant Defence presence in the Northern Territory. Our Northern Territory Defence Support Industry Development Strategy 2007-17 has seen the Henderson government partnering with the Defence Support Industry. Additionally, we have the Northern Territory Industry Participation Plan, which works through major project industry participations plans such as the INPEX LNG project. Proper planning processes such as this will ensure Territory businesses are prepared to adequately participate in these large scale projects which come on from time to time.
Economic stability is a priority area for the Henderson Labor government. Being economically sustainable is part of the Territory 2030 strategy, and that initiative is investing in the future of the Northern Territory. Under Growing the Territory, we have programs aimed at strengthening the local workforce and attracting skilled workers to the Northern Territory from interstate and overseas to address local skill shortages. This also includes the Henderson government’s Jobs NT strategy, which I have already touched on. Jobs NT will assist with the employment of 300 apprentices and 120 school based apprenticeships across government over the next three years.
There will be $2m through the Indigenous Training Employment Program to identify employment opportunities in remote communities, and provide relevant vocational education and training. A further $720 000 will become available to undertake the Skilled Worker campaign, and operate the Workforce Growth Unit. The unit is the government’s driver for attracting skilled and unskilled labour from around Australia and overseas to the Northern Territory.
One of the priority areas of the Territory 2030 strategy is knowledge, creativity and innovation. This aims to improve access to, and the use of, technology. As part of this initiative, we will see the implementation of the ICT outsourcing services contract under the new service model designed to meet strategic Northern Territory government requirements, including increased bandwidth, and the growing demand for mobile Internet services at competitive rates; the streamlining of the accounts payable process through implementing the electronic invoice management system; and the introduction of a purchase requisition workflow system to streamline processing of low value purchases across government.
Another Territory 2030 priority area which will focus on the environment and sustainable living is obviously the climate change area. Through Greening the Territory, businesses have been proactive in reducing their carbon footprint. Budget 2010-11 will provide $700 000 for the second year of the three year commitment of $2m for ecoBiz NT, an energy efficiency program for business under the climate change policy to improve environmental outcomes and reduce costs for local businesses. Importantly, the carbon footprint of Northern Territory government operations will continue to be reduced, along with associated savings in fuel consumption and electricity use, through the Green Fleet Strategy and the Green Leasing Strategy.
I would like now to move to the Power and Water Corporation. Budget 2010-11 provides for the continuation of our major infrastructure programs, particularly across the power network. The Henderson Labor government has committed $1.7bn to the Power and Water Corporation for this program. This is the single biggest commitment ever to the Power and Water Corporation, and its previous connotations, and is vital for every fabric of the Northern Territory, both now and into the future.
The Merv Davies report was handed down some time ago. Most of the Merv Davies report recommendations relate to improving the Power and Water Corporation’s maintenance operations in the longer term. The Power and Water Corporation has prepared a long-term action plan to ensure these recommendations are implemented, and to provide clear direction for its leaders and workforce. This long-term plan will account for a move towards condition-based maintenance and accountability, organisational structural changes, as well as training and development for Power and Water staff. It was amazing those things were not in place. As the Merv Davies report highlighted, they came about from the proposed sell-off by the CLP of the Power and Water Corporation.
Other areas …
Mr Elferink: Not true.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, it is in the report, member for Port Darwin; it is quite clear …
Mr Elferink: Not true; it is speculation.
Mr KNIGHT: A report was done which recommended - there was a decision by the CLP government to privatise power, water and sewerage services in the Northern Territory, and dismantle Power and Water itself.
The Remedial Asset Management Program, or RAMP, has assessed and tested 27 zone substations and set priorities for repairs, upgrades and replacement. The fourth quarter report shows the corporation is on track to achieve the targets set, and expects to complete the remedial works planned by December 2010.
On the subject of gas supply, the new on-specification gas supply from ENI has been available from the Blacktip gas field since January this year. The 286 km Bonaparte gas pipeline now transports gas from onshore just south of Wadeye, to the existing pipeline running from Alice Springs. They meet at Ban Ban Springs. Power and Water has also secured supplementary gas supply from Darwin LNG via an interconnect which we constructed at Wickham Point. This gives us three points of redundancy at the moment.
The Power and Water Corporation has secured gas supply from both Central Australia and the Top End for the next 25 years. The use of diesel fuel in remote communities will gradually reduce in favour of low-emission fuels, in line with the Northern Territory government’s Climate Change Policy and Territory 2030 strategy.
Moving on to generation, Power and Water has developed a generation investment strategy in response to strong demand for electricity in the Darwin/Katherine system, and increasing recognition of the need for a major refurbishment and life extension work on the 25-year-old Channel Island Power Station. The strategy advances acquisition and installation of generation units at Channel Island and Weddell Power Stations to support the growth in population, and the need to replace ageing infrastructure. The power stations at Weddell, Channel Island, Berrimah, Katherine and Tennant Creek, will all receive additional units at the combined cost of approximately $200m. Two Rolls Royce engines are already en route to Channel Island as part of the Henderson government’s commitment to securing the power needs for the Top End.
To provide for the future power needs of Alice Springs, the first of three 10.9 MW turbines arrived in mid-April - and everyone would be aware of those. All three units will be sited at the Owen Springs Power Station, providing an additional 33 MW of power to meet the growing demand of the town and the surrounding areas. The total cost of the work at Owen Springs is $126m, a great investment into Alice Springs …
Mr Conlan: And supported by unsightly power lines.
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry? They are great power lines.
Mr Conlan: Unsightly power lines.
Mr KNIGHT: They are beautiful!
Mr Conlan: We will make a note of that and let people know you think they are aesthetically pleasing.
Mr KNIGHT: It is a great investment for Alice Springs. It shows this government is committed to Alice Springs with land release, more public housing, upgrades to the hospital, schools, and now $126m going into a new power station which will serve Alice Springs for decades and decades into the future.
One important area of Power and Water is the power networks. The power networks capital investment reflects the remediation of the zone substations in response to the Merv Davies report recommendations. They include upgrading the capacity to complement the generation expansion and meet the growing needs of the Northern Territory. Upgrades are progressing at Casuarina, Snell Street, and City Zone. To keep pace with growth, both Lee Point and Frances Bay will undergo expansion, and the Channel Island switch over will be enhanced to allow for the additional generation capabilities.
On the subject of water, water and sewage services capital investment is designed to meet the demand from planned infrastructure and development and population growth, while complying with environmental requirements. To meet the growing needs of the Darwin CBD, work is almost complete on the installation of the 1.2 km water main along the south side of Darwin on the Esplanade and Daly Street. Stage 2 will soon start, with 9 km of mains, securing water supply to the CBD, Stuart Park and surrounding areas.
The Palmerston water supply will also be increased, with the addition of a new $2m mains and elevated water tank at the cost of $56.5m. That goes on top of Archer Zone Substation, so a huge investment into one of the great places in the Northern Territory - Palmerston. A particular focus has been placed on the new areas, including Palmerston East, for those new developments. Work to increase the capacity is under way now, with the raising of the Darwin River Dam wall, which will give us an extra 20% capacity. I have visited on several occasions and it is nearing completion. Also, work is being done on Manton Dam; we are recommissioning Manton Dam and looking at which way to go with that.
Approximately $55.7m is being spent on work to progress the closure of the Larrakeyah Sewage Outfall by 2011. This will involve diverting flows to the Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant will be upgraded in two stages - this year, and next year through the Dry. Expansion of waste water treatment facilities at Leanyer and Sanderson will soon be under way to support development in the Lee Point area of Lyons and Muirhead.
I will now move on to the Seniors area. We are seeing many more seniors calling the Territory home. That is why we have made a deliberate decision to cater for their needs as part of our plan of delivering for families and investing in the future of the Territory. Territory seniors, and other members of the Northern Territory Pensioner Concession Scheme, will benefit from Budget 2010-11 through the introduction of a new $8500 concession to assist senior Territorians and pension card and concession holders to buy a different style of home.
The Henderson government is also directing $49m towards construction of 150 new homes for seniors, and that is great news. This will include the development of three seniors’ villages. New seniors units are earmarked for the suburbs of Johnston, Malak, and Larapinta. Again, the Northern Territory Labor government is looking after Alice Springs. Work is also continuing on the previously announced $10m 40 new unit facility at Bellamack seniors village.
I am extremely pleased to see these innovative announcements on stamp duty concession and new seniors’ accommodation were welcomed by a number of organisations around the Territory.
Moving onto the other end of the scale - young Territorians. I am delighted the Henderson government has committed a new youth action plan for Palmerston. Palmerston is the Territory’s fastest growing city and has the youngest population. The Palmerston Youth Action Plan will include funding for the remodelling of positive learning centres at Palmerston High School and Gray Primary School to help students experiencing difficulty transitioning back to mainstream schooling.
Budget 2010-11 will also fund the action plan for more family support services and crisis accommodation. There will also be an additional $3.47m for Stage 2 of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan to help build on current initiatives to get young people in Alice Springs back to school and reduce their potential for contact with antisocial activities.
In addition, the Henderson Labor government will direct $6.4m towards to upgrade of the Centralian Middle School and the establishment of a youth hub at ANZAC Hill. I congratulate the Minister for Central Australia. He certainly is a strong advocate in Cabinet and Caucus for funding for Alice Springs; and it is great to see some real results coming out of that.
It is really great news in all areas across government, and for me particularly in my portfolios, that we are supporting business, we are creating jobs in the Territory, and we are looking after our seniors, and our youth. I commend the budget to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, returning to the statement of the minister on developing and progressing Women’s Policy, and I will speak to it in my capacity as Minister for Public Employment.
Mr Elferink: Not even ready for their own ministerial responses.
Ms Lawrie: Yes, we are ready.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms Lawrie: We are ready.
Mr Elferink: You are clearly not ready.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The opposition has had its chance to talk about the budget; they are clearly not ready. They are out the back doing their sums to cover up their multibillion dollar hole, and they are just not ready to speak.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I am proud to say the Northern Territory government is an equal opportunity employer which strives to represent the community it serves. As a result, our public service contains a diverse mix of employees; the government recognises women are an extremely important part of this mix, and values the contribution they make to the workplace and to serving Territorians.
Currently, there are more than 12 500 women in the public service; that is actual people in jobs, not just positions. Those 12 500 women represent nearly 63% of the total public service workforce. Most female public servants work in the agencies of Health, Education and Tourism doing jobs in those areas, and in many diverse occupations.
Staffing trends show the proportion of women in the Northern Territory public sector has steadily increased from 54.3% in June 1993 to a figure of almost 63% currently. This government’s long-term strategic plan, Territory 2030, outlines several objectives to increase the number of women in leadership roles in both the private and public sectors. Those aims include increasing the proportion of Territory women on boards and committees; increasing the proportion of women in senior public service positions; increasing the proportion of women in elected positions, and increasing the proportion of Territory women self-identifying as holding a leadership position.
This government is committed to increasing the number of women in leadership and management roles in the public sector, and using a range of workforce development measures.
In 2009-10, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment set performance measures for women in executive positions in the NT Public Service at 40%. I am very pleased to inform the House, and the Minister for Women’s Policy, we reached that figure in March. However, 40% is still not reflective of our wider population. This government continues to work on initiatives to increase that figure. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment has implemented a number of initiatives and programs to help do so, and I will go through some of those now – Leadership programs, Discovery, and Women as Leaders program.
Discovery has helped female public servants to develop greater confidence, learn leadership skills, and build valuable support and business networks. This financial year, two programs were held in the Territory, with the Darwin-based program attracting 20 participants, and the Alice Springs program attracting 21. The program is aimed at the AO4 classification or equivalent, and above.
Lookrukin Indigenous Women’s Leadership program is a unique personal and professional development program for Indigenous women employed in the Northern Territory public sector. It has been designed so participants can gain the knowledge and skills necessary to increase effectiveness in their current position, and to improve their career progression. Participants undertake a Diploma of Management at Charles Darwin University. This program began last week with 20 Indigenous women taking part; 17 from across the NT public sector, two from Charles Darwin University, and one from the Australian government.
The Public Sector Management Program is a joint venture between the Australian and Territory governments resulting in a Graduate Certificate in Public Sector Management from Flinders University. The program is a national strategy coordinated in the Territory by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. This financial year, two programs were run in the Territory. In the Darwin-based program, 13 of the 22 participants were women employed by the NT Public Service. In Alice Springs, half the 16 participants were female NT public servants. Last year 12 women graduated from a group of 18.
The Australia and New Zealand School of Government is a consortium of Australian and New Zealand governments, universities and business councils. The Northern Territory became a member in 2008. This financial year, the Northern Territory public sector had two highly regarded women accepted into ANZSOG’s prestigious programs. Elizabeth Morris, the former Chief Executive Officer for Policy Coordination in the Department of Justice began the Executive Fellows Program, and has since been appointed a magistrate in the Darwin Magistrates Court. Penny Fielding, the Director of Aged and Disability Services within the Department of Health and Families began a two year part-time Executive Masters of Public Administration program.
Reward and Recognition: the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment coordinates the Territory’s Australia Day Public Service Medal every year. This year, Julie Nicholson, from the Department of the Chief Minister, received one of two Public Service Medals awarded in the Territory for her outstanding leadership and commitment to the machinery of government and its statutory requirements.
Mr Elferink: Hear, hear, and well deserved!
Dr BURNS: Very well deserved.
Maternity Leave: the Northern Territory government recognises that with such a large proportion of women working in the NT public sector we must be flexible about balancing work and family. To that end, our maternity leave provisions are generally equal, and in some cases better, than other Australian jurisdictions. An employee with at least 12 months continuous service is entitled to 14 weeks paid maternity leave at full pay rates, or 28 weeks at half pay. That can be combined with other forms of pay such as recreation leave, up to a maximum of 52 weeks.
Northern Territory public sector employees can also access a scheme which allows them to have up to six years unpaid leave after the birth of a child, or the adoption of a child. That is a very special provision which enables mums to spend time with their child in those very important formative years before school.
This government is continually looking to refine and improve these provisions wherever possible.
With women accounting for nearly 63% of our public service, it is not unfair to say they are the backbone of government service delivery. Women are a valued and integral part of the machinery of government, and this government will continue to ensure a workforce which is equitable and fair. We will also continue to improve our human resource policies, promote professional development, and reward outstanding work in our female public sector employees.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House, and I welcome the minister bringing it on. It is a very important debate. We should always be seeking to value women in our public service and in our community generally. I believe this government recognises that. Within the portfolio area of Public Employment, the initiatives I have detailed here are impressive, and they will continue and expand so we can recruit, attract, and retain the best quality women for our public service.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak on the achievements in developing and progressing women’s policy in the Northern Territory presented by the minister. This statement recognises and reinforces the vital role Territory women play every day as mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, educators, healers, carers, business and political achievers, and so much more.
Territory women play a major part in keeping our communities together and driving them forward. They have done this, and continue to do so, in an ever-changing social and economic environment, and whilst living with challenges many other Australian women will never encounter. As a bush member, I see firsthand the geographical and social challenges Territory women face and overcome, and I applaud them for their enduring strength and commitment.
It might be time to mention one Territory woman I know very well: Dawn Margaret McCarthy, my wife. Regarding the challenges Territory women face, it is very interesting three out of four babies were born in the bush, she completed a tertiary degree in the bush while, as a residence, all I provided was a Toyota Troop Carrier and a tent. That was for three-and-a-half years. There was a baby capsule bolted to the floor. She raised the second youngest child and completed a degree.
If anyone wants to make a comment on student accommodation at Charles Darwin University they should talk to my wife, because she found it palatial after returning to either Nudgeburra or Wanggulinji on the mail plane, to be greeted by a couple of kids, a husband, a dusty Toyota, and a travel itinerary which took us off to another homeland centre school. When we are talking about Territory women, I would like to get that on the public record. I believe it is fitting. Good on you, Dawn - a great choice of adventures and, you never know your luck - as I have been advised in this House you need plan B – plan B might be to hit the road again one of these days.
In Correctional Services our commitment to women is evident in many areas. The vast majority of our prisoners are Indigenous males and when they leave prison the majority return to their community. We have an obligation to the women and the families of those communities to do what we can to positively influence offender behaviour for the better.
The new era in Corrections is about building safer, stronger and more productive communities, by placing a stronger emphasis on breaking the offending cycle, and renewing the focus on rehabilitation, education, training, and reintegration. We aim to support Territory women to reintegrate their men back into the family and into the community.
Corrections professionals and specialists will work with the families of these offenders, community support groups, service providers, and industry, to ensure the appropriate delivery of rehabilitation, education, training, and work readiness skills to increase an offender’s chance of a successful return to the community. These specialists will contribute to women’s safety, health and wellbeing through the provision of programs such as the Indigenous Family Violence Offender Program, and by providing access to sex offender treatment programs.
It is also important to recognise the work done to improve conditions and support for women prisoners. The Ombudsman 2007 Report contained 67 recommendations, of which 41 are the responsibility of Northern Territory Correctional Services. Of these, 37 are complete, and four partially complete. Key achievements include: the development of the Female Prisoners in Prison Policy, which is also a commitment under the Building on Our Strengths Framework; the establishment of a female community service work party, and the construction of a new education and program facility for female offenders at the Darwin Correctional Centre, which has allowed seven women to have hands-on involvement in the construction project.
A number of other recommendations highlighted the need for improved infrastructure for women prisoners at Darwin Correctional Centre. Completed infrastructure includes: the provision of at-risk cells; the addition of cells to ease overcrowding and to provide accommodation for women who have achieved the lowest possible security rating, and providing parity with the rehabilitation and reintegration philosophy of the male living skills unit; and, the construction of a new visiting facility, including facilities for visiting children.
The construction of a new 25-bed facility at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, which became operational in March this year, provides accommodation for women which is more conducive to their maintaining family ties, and has significantly reduced the need to transfer women from Alice Springs to Darwin. It also freed up valuable space in the correctional facility, which can be used for education and training initiatives. Education and training of inmates, both male and female, is fundamental to breaking the cycle of re-offending.
It is also pleasing to advise Northern Territory Correctional Services has established a Women’s Advisory Committee, which has representation from Corrections and other relevant areas of the Department of Justice, including HR. This committee monitors the achievements against the priorities identified in Building on our Strengths, not only for women outside the workplace, but also for those women in Correctional Services, balancing life in a custodial environment and family commitments.
In construction: over the last 10 years we have seen an increase in the number of women in senior roles in the construction industry. This is a welcome change. Within the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, there have been similar changes, and I have been impressed by the number of women holding senior positions within the new department. It is also taking place in the field of civil engineering, and the department’s strong focus on growing its own and investing in young graduates is paying off. One of the lead project managers on the $110m Tiger Brennan expansion project is a young Territory lady. We need to remember this one of the most significant road projects in the Territory’s history. It is being delivered within a project management framework called ECI, Early Contractor Involvement, which has not been used in the Territory before, and the project is on track for completion this year. This lady has a great public service future ahead of her.
At the end April this year, the Department of Construction and Infrastructure employed nine women as professional engineers and 13 women in the executive stream. This compares to just four women professional engineers and no women in executive positions within the Construction Division in 2000. This is an extremely significant change over the decade, and one the department and I wholly support.
We are also seeing more women entering into technical fields such as civil construction. My department reports there are 20 women in the technical stream, as against six in the Construction Division over the decade. The Construction Division 10 years ago employed a total of 57 women compared to a total 178 in the department today. This is over three times the number of women employed in 2000, and is something we can be very proud of.
Like all agencies, the Department of Lands and Planning is an equal opportunity employer. It has a strong management framework and a majority of women at the executive director level. This fact directly contradicts the assertion we are not promoting women within the public service to the executive level. The leaders in Lands and Planning are doing a great job in driving land release, delivering strategic planning, improving strategic business and financial services, growing our public transport network and delivering in Central Australia.
In Arts and Museums: in March this year the Northern Territory Library launched Territory Women, a newly compiled online database and display. This site contains biographical information on women who have contributed to the Territory way of life. I encourage all members to look at the site and gain an understanding of key women in our history. The library’s website describes the site as, and I quote from the website:
Women plan and play an incredible role in the arts and culture environment of our Territory. Our key arts dealers are predominantly women, and our key festivals, the Aboriginal Arts Fair, Top End Arts Fair and Telstra Arts Awards are all heavily driven by women in the arts sector.
In celebrating the achievements of our Territory women, I am compelled to acknowledge the women of the Barkly - women like Shire President, Rosalie Kunoth-Monks, who leads her team with passion and strength of conviction for improved outcomes for the residents of the Barkly Shire. I also commend the work of other women across the Barkly Shire, too many for me to mention in one sitting, for their commitment to educating our children, healing our sick, caring for our disadvantaged, protecting our environment and heritage, and contributing to our local economy. It is for these women and women across the Territory that we continue to progress action on the key priorities of health and wellbeing, safety, economic security, leadership and participation and life balance.
I opened this statement recognising the importance of women in shaping our community and applauding them for their achievements to date. I very much look forward to celebrating future achievements of all Territory women. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I welcome this statement to the House and thank the minister for bringing it forward and, as the member for Araluen said, ‘a long time coming’. I believe we need to talk about women’s issues, and women in general, more often in this House so we can send out adjournment speeches to these women to show them we appreciate the hard work they do.
As the member for Barkly said, they are not just the backbone to society; they are the backbone to all elements of human life. They are wives, nannas, mothers, aunties, teachers, nurses, childcare workers, the grandmothers sitting down in the communities looking after their grandchildren or teaching their grandchildren traditional songs. They really are the backbone of all aspects of human life and society.
In thanking the minister for bringing this forward and talking about equal pay for women, White Ribbon Day, parental leave, safe houses and women’s leadership we have come a long way in recognising women. I do not think we have done enough. When we look at Aboriginal teacher assistants, health workers and police officers, there are two standards. The non-Indigenous police officers, Health staff and teachers have all sorts of remuneration for living in the bush. We certainly do not recognise our teachers and give them proper accommodation so they can live two or three as a family in a house, and go to school in morning and teach our children, or go to the clinic and fix the sink, or go to childcare and look after the children knowing they have had a good night’s sleep and the house has not been overcrowded.
I want to talk about women in my electorate. Old Lily Moketarinja at Hermannsburg has worked in the Education department for over 20 years and always lived in the missionary house; always lived in other people’s homes. She raised all her grandchildren. Unfortunately she lost her son five years ago, and had to raise all her grandchildren. She always depended on other families to house her. The Education department could not give her a home, even though she worked for the department for over 20 years.
The other one is a young sister of mine, Emslie Lankin, who works as a Band 2 administrator in the Health department at Hermannsburg clinic. She lives in an overcrowded house, but she still has to get up every morning, take her two little girls to school and kindy, and ensure she does her eight hours a day at Hermannsburg Clinic.
Her mother-in-law, Mona Kantawarra, and Edna Kantawarra, both with over 17 years in the Education department working at the Hermannsburg school, are always living in other people’s homes; always living in overcrowded situations. These people, like everyone else in the profession, are expected to go to work at 8.30 am and perform duties in the community, teach the students and help their colleagues inside the classroom or in the yard every day, and they go home to a situation of overcrowding.
There are men in the same category. There are Aboriginal male health workers who go home not to seven or eight people in a house, but over 20. I speak for my brother, Lionel Inkamala, at the Hermannsburg Clinic who goes to work every day; he has a real work ethic and teaches other people that going to work every day is good. He always goes home to three elderly people, 10 or so children under the age of 12, and other young fellows who live inside his house. As I said, he lives in a very overcrowded situation.
I would like to talk about someone I spoke of in this parliament a long time ago, and that is my sister-in-law, Linda Anderson, who is deputy principal of Papunya School, and has worked at the school for over 20 years. Linda still has to go home to someone else’s overcrowded house and find a bed, either in the lounge room or bunk up with other people, and she still goes to school every morning. Every morning she is in that classroom teaching kids and going to school five days a week. She also has to pick up the outstation children every morning.
There are many stories like that. There is Ampi at Kintore School, who has worked for the Education department for over 20 years, along with Irene Nangala; they are the backbones of the community, they do so much. It is the resource we all tap into as governments. If you want someone to speak up on something, if you want someone to be on a committee, guess who they get? Irene Nangala. Irene Nangala is on every committee. Irene Nangala is the backbone of the community at Kintore. If you want statehood, Irene Nangala is the one you have to get. If you want to be on a women’s committee, it is Irene Nangala. No one cares about Irene Nangala when she is broken down and sick. No one cares about her.
This is where I continue to speak up for these people and say, through the statement the minister has bought forward, we have come a long way. However, we still need the courage and strength to go further, to recognise these women are the backbone of these communities, are the backbone of their families, are the backbone to government committees, and to ensure things are done properly with consultation, with language, so we can filter the information back into the communities.
When are we going to make that gutsy decision to say Linda Anderson can no longer live in an overcrowded house with 13 or 14 people to a house? She is the Executive Principal of the Papunya School. When are we going to give her the same rights?
I will go back to saying I believe this statement is good; it is good to talk about these issues because it is an issue we need to confront, but we need guts. We need guts to say: ‘We are not going to cause a separate society. We are not going to create a poor-bugger education system for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. We are not going to create a poor-bugger health system for Aboriginal people based on race’. We have to start doing things properly.
If Linda Anderson is the Executive Principal of the Papunya School, then Linda is entitled to all the benefits every one of her colleagues in the Papunya School is. Mona Kantawarra, Lily Moketarinja – they are all entitled to the same benefits. These are the people we use.
On White Ribbon Day, I would like to really talk on this issue because domestic violence is like a big boil festering amongst all of us. It is good to have ambassadors to White Ribbon Day. However, do those ambassadors really know and feel the pain of victims of domestic violence, or is it they wear the little white ribbon on their jackets for the day to say: ‘We acknowledge you were bashed. We acknowledge you died. We acknowledge you were in hospital and had to have reconstruction’, as one young girl from Papunya had to? She had to go to Adelaide to have a reconstruction on her nose because her boyfriend or husband had kicked her face in.
We have to go beyond just wearing the white ribbon. I have never seen one of these ambassadors actually walk in the street, like the member for Braitling and I when we saw that woman getting thrown out of the car in Alice Springs. Instead of just putting the beautiful white ribbon on their jackets for the day, they need to get out and start talking to people. In my community of Papunya, when Charlie King, who is an ambassador, went to Papunya, the community was empty. He rocked up, spoke to two people - two men. One happened to be my brother. He spoke to Syd and Sammy. No one knew he was coming into the community. There was no organised community meeting to talk about the issues.
We can have all these ambassadors but are they real? Can they feel the pain? It is like the Police Commissioner when he first had the job and went on the road in Alice Springs. The member for Braitling and I were going in the right direction to where over 175 people were on the Royal Flying Doctor grass, and the Police Commissioner was going to the other side of town into the mall, which had been cleaned up for him. That is just not on. Either he has to see the problem we see as residents every day otherwise he is not going to make the right decisions. You cannot go around cleaning up Alice Springs because the Police Commissioner or the Chief Minister is coming to town. You have to leave Alice Springs for the Police Commissioner and the Chief Minister to see what we, as residents, see every day - what we see when we go to 24 hours, what we see when we are coming out of the Memo Club; what we see at the front of the hospital; what we see as residents of Alice Springs when we are driving past the Royal Flying Doctor, past Kentucky Fried Chicken. In the Gap you can have over 300 people, as there were on the long weekend of the Lightning Carnival.
Not one word is spoken by anyone. There are many assaults happening on the streets of Alice Springs - not one word. Who was in the street? I was in the street at 2 am watching it from the Kentucky Fried Chicken car park - absolutely amazed at how the town was out of control. However, did I hear Mayor Damien Ryan talk about the issue of losing control of his town the next morning, or the next week or the next month? No. He just wants to talk about the good issues - the good things happening in Alice Springs. The good things are being overridden by the bad things, and that is what tourists see when they come to Alice Springs - people getting bashed.
On that night of the Lightning Carnival two non-Indigenous people hopped over a woman getting bashed in the corner. This is how bad it has become in Alice Springs. Let us talk about the real issues.
Let us talk about the issues of giving teacher assistants like Lily Moketarinja and Alison Multa of Hermannsburg, and Irene and Ampi at Kintore, real houses, real rights. Let us talk about Lionel Inkamalaand Emslie Lankinhaving houses instead of going home to live in overcrowded situations. This is really caring about people. This is saying we do not treat you any differently to any of your other colleagues in the community.
Are we going to have the guts to do that? I do not think so. I think we are just going to pussyfoot around the edges of all policy and just say: ‘We will build you the black fella houses, we will give you the black fella education, and we will give you the black fella health that you deserve’.
We have created a separate society in the Northern Territory. That is why literacy and numeracy NAPLAN results are coming back with appalling results for the Northern Territory government. Our children are failing. We are failing in health, we are failing in everything. When I was at Docker River, the childcare centre was closed for the whole week I was there. Working mothers could not take their children anywhere but home, or take them to the nearest relatives, or take them to their grandmothers. I have had reports today that the Papunya Childcare Centre has been closed for two days. It was closed for a day last week.
These are the real obstacles in the way of advancing people. As I said at the very beginning, I welcome any debate in this House on advancing women and looking at women’s issues, however let us do it properly. Let us have our ambassadors go out into the streets of Alice Springs and pick up the pieces of all these women laying at the Royal Flying Doctor grounds. Let us not be afraid to talk about the negatives along with the positives.
That is the message from me to the Mayor of Alice Springs, Damien Ryan. You cannot just close the bad door, open up the good door, and deal with the good issues. A town belongs to a mayor, and a mayor needs to speak about the bad things and the good things. By dealing with and talking about the issues of influx of population from remote Aboriginal communities into the town, it becomes a better place for us to discuss these issues and talk to people.
When the town camp transformation happened, and the cleanup happened, I put a note on the back of the magazine going to my electorate encouraging people to respect the town. I said there is a major cleanup of town camps in Alice Springs, please respect other people’s country, and please respect the town of Alice Springs. That message went out from the local member to all constituents in my electorate. I did not see anyone else do that.
If we work together we can start getting real solutions to the huge problem we have. As I said, this is the beginning of something which has been brought inside this House, and we need to discuss the issues further because, really, all these women are the backbone to everything we do.
However, who picks up the pieces? Who cries for these people? There are certainly going to be no adjournments inside this House for Irene Nangala – no way. There is always a condolence motion for other people, but after you have worn old Irene Nangala out, you are not going to have a condolence motion for her. That is the kind of thing we have to understand and respect: these people are special elements, a special part of their community, and we have to respect them.
Are they teachers, or are they just teacher assistants? Do they live in overcrowded houses and still have to come to school to teach the children? Are they health staff, professional staff, do they work inside the clinic, do we allow them to live in overcrowded situations - we are not teaching them. This is the education strategy we need to have in place. I will go back to saying to the Mayor of Alice Springs: ‘You are the mayor. You are the owner of the town. You need to talk about the bad things that happen in Alice Springs as well’.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forward her statement.
I congratulate Damien Ryan for the effort he has made in the town. He has done a great job. He certainly tries to bring the town together. He speaks very strongly to me, as minister, and other ministers. I am sure he takes the issues to the highest level - to the Chief Minister. I congratulate Damien Ryan for all his efforts. I do not accept the assertions by the member for Macdonnell. He is a fine gentleman and looks after all Centralians in Alice Springs.
I support the statement from my colleague, the Minister for Women’s Policy. As you have heard, the Henderson government is making progress to enhance the development of women’s policy in the Northern Territory and, despite the fact the Territory suffers from the frontier reputation in certain quarters, I believe most Territorians see things differently. We are making progress. The Territory is somewhere women can enjoy ever increasing access to areas traditionally denied them in the past. Women can, and are, winning places in the highest levels of the Territory. I was delighted, several years ago, when speaking with another parliamentarian about the Northern Territory and our women parliamentarians.
At that time we had a female Chief Minister, a female Opposition Leader, a female Speaker and I believe there were some other roles played by female parliamentarians of the Northern Territory Assembly. I was very honoured to recount the representation of those particular women. I believe that helps in the guidance of policy and considerations in this House, and the manner in which we do our business. I was very chuffed to do that.
More recently, we have had the elevation of Jenny Blokland as a judge in the Supreme Court. A great achievement and another great role model for Territory women. Women are achieving due recognition and should be given a great deal of adulation. However, despite the achievements of individuals I have mentioned, I think we would all accept there is much more to be done before we can say Territory women are in a position to take advantage of the opportunities the Territory offers.
When I look at many women in my own electorate, and other bush electorates, they certainly do it extremely tough and endure more than perhaps we can ever imagine. It is encouraging to see young women coming from out bush, and also many of the older women are standing up when they are frail and tired, trying to combat social issues out bush. In my time in the bush I would like to acknowledge a few. This does not represent everyone I have met.
I was talking to the minister about a young lady I met at Ngukurr and worked with about seven or eight years ago. I met young Daphne Daniels, David Daniels’ daughter. She was very thoughtful; she was always struggling, trying to get things for the community, to get the message out, to get cohesion, to get a place for young people in the community.
In that community, I had the opportunity to do housing surveys. Housing is often discussed in this Chamber, however, I believe there are very few members in this House who have done housing surveys which go into every single room of every single house in a community - every single toilet, bathroom, bedroom - to see the conditions. I am very aware of conditions in Indigenous housing and Ngukurr, being a long established community, has different generations of housing. I saw where Daphne lived; I saw the conditions she had to go home to, she had to sleep in, yet she would front up first thing in the morning in her role in the media area at Ngukurr, and take on issues. I had a good night’s sleep; I could go to my home in Katherine, but Daphne was doing much more even before she reached the front door of the office in the morning. I congratulate her, and I hope she sticks with leadership in that community.
Ros Frith from Kalkarindji is now the chair of the Katherine West Health Board. She is a very feisty character and not one to cross. She is a great person; a beautiful person. She has a really big heart. She stands up for her community; she stands up for the rights of women also. She stands up for everything basically, and does it with compassion; a very intelligent lady. She is now heading up Katherine West Health Board, and I am sure that health board will go to a new level.
In my time at Timber Creek, the Jones family was very strong, and the women were very strong. I think they get it from their mother. The older girls, Deborah, Lorraine, and Carol, are very strong, intelligent women. They struggle with issues out bush. Debra was involved with the resource centre, and Lorraine is still involved with the police. They took tough decisions; we all took tough decisions there. I could go home, turn off, lock the door; shut the curtains, but Debra had to go back into the same community where she had made tough decisions; tough decisions for her own family. She has endured; Lorraine, as well.
She was the one who, not so many years ago, had had enough of domestic violence in the Timber Creek communities of Myatt, Gilwi Muruning and Bulla. She led the charge in getting DVOs on not only her previous partner, but in encouraging other women too. There were DVOs going everywhere, and rightly so. It certainly snapped the young men into gear about what could and could not happen. That is where these leaders in communities raise the bar; a bar only mothers, and women, and sisters and aunties can do. I guess they have a different way of approaching things than men.
I recognise those Jones’ women; they are very tough, very intelligent. I met Lorraine recently in Palmerston. A total of 12 Jones children are attending Catholic schools in Melbourne; they are succeeding. Her son, Calvin, is only 13 or 14 years and he has been to Europe studying for a year. These kids are studying down south and will come back into leadership roles. They will respect women because their mothers made sure they would. It is great to see.
On the other end of the scale, the older women in these communities - and I recognise Theodora Narndu at Port Keats, a very strong woman and traditional owner. Theodora is the head of the women’s association, and they have done fabulously in with their business enterprises. For someone who is frail and ageing, she is participating, and still leading the women. Seeing her on Saturday at the AFL grand final at Wadeye, cheering her sons and the rest of the family members on and dancing them onto the field was very impressive. I know she is not well, but it certainly seemed to lift her.
One other very strong lady in the region, Betty Daly at Daly River, is a very knowledgeable, forthright woman who is leading by example in her own community, and family, to respect women and gain independence through education - driving her kids, grandkids and her great grandchildren into education. The Daly clan are all attending school regularly, and that family will grow and be leaders into the future.
The Wilson family are at Peppimenarti, with the matriarch, Regina. She has a few boys, but Naiya and Nunuk are great leaders in the community and have taken on the club. Niah and her partner run the club, and Nanuk is heavily involved with the art side. It is a great credit to them.
There are some particular issues I would like to touch on with respect to women: economic security and women’s safety. The issues of economic security and safety for women and children are issues we must continue to progress. We have seen the development of safe places in key communities across the Northern Territory, with the increased presence in the bush. The Henderson government has also introduced groundbreaking mandatory reporting of domestic violence to help protect women and children. Sadly, the statistics show far too many Aboriginal women are victims of domestic violence. The push to report, and to get DVOs against partners who are doing the wrong thing is important, as I have said.
This government will certainly not shy away from doing whatever it can to enhance the protection of women across the Northern Territory. We will work to support police in their efforts against this most insidious form of violence, both physical and mental. The Henderson government has also committed to a range of alcohol strategies, which also play a key role in protecting women. All too often, it is the women in the Northern Territory who are the victims of this totally unacceptable alcohol-fueled violence.
The Police minister has advised the House about initiatives contained in Budget 2010-11 to improve remote policing. This will help advance the safety of women in our remote regions. Budget 2010-11 delivers $30.6m for police in remote communities. This means $27.1m for policing in 18 remote communities, which is a key part of our A Working Future strategy. Further, Budget 2010-11 contains $2.8m to reduce substance abuse in remote communities. Budget 2010-11 also delivers $2.6m to boost the Crimes Victims Assistance Fund which provides important services to victims of crime, including free counselling and financial assistance. These are important advances.
As a government, we recognise there is an extensive legacy of disadvantage when it comes to the safety of women and children in the bush, and a long-term concerted effort certainly is required. The Henderson government recognises the challenges and we are committed to policies which help meet those challenges.
Economic security remains an ongoing challenge for women, particularly women in the regions. It is not just because of the limited financial circumstances in the bush. The Henderson government is committed to the development of growth towns across the Territory as part of our A Working Future strategy. Members will have heard the Treasurer announce the biggest-ever annual investment to support the development of our growth towns and the improvement in services for people living in the bush. This will produce valuable spin-offs for women living in our regions. The Henderson government is committed to working with the Australian government to transform our growth towns. We are putting money into housing, land servicing, and essential services.
This is vitally needed other infrastructure required to normalise those towns. Once that is achieved, you can expect normal behaviour and treatment of women, and normal opportunities for women to participate in the labour market.
We have also invested $12m to improve services in the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, and Sport and Recreation programs in communities. This will give equity to women.
With respect to jobs, the ABS Labour Force data contains encouraging news regarding economic security for Territory women. The ABS figures show Territory women have the second-highest female workforce participation rate in Australia at 68.2%. The Territory also has the lowest female unemployment rate in Australia at 3.4%. At the national level, the participation rate for women was 58.3%, while the female unemployment rate was 5.2%. A great result for the Northern Territory - 68% participation rate for women is certainly excellent. Budget 2010-11 provides money for Jobs NT 2010-2012. This includes initiatives to help Territory business develop their skilled workforce and meet demands for growth into the future.
Job creation is part of the Henderson government’s plan for delivering now for Territory families and investing in the future. More than 10 000 new apprenticeship and traineeship positions have commenced with the support of this Territory government initiative; that is a 57% increase since 2001. The development plan has a range of initiatives within it - traineeships and apprenticeships. The reason I wish to re-emphasise the Henderson government’s commitment to training our own is data on apprenticeship commencements for the period July 2009 to May of this year shows 61% of all apprentice commencements are female; 61% is great news.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Business and Employment, it is now 5.30 pm, and in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a report from the member for Greatorex in relation to RTD interstate travel.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill deals with the principle where a public sector ‘may’ share confidential information rather than ‘must’ share the information, rather than finding other reasons to avoid doing so. There were examples given in the range of public hearings on child protection earlier in the year, that when child protection information was required by government bodies, it was repeatedly refused due to privacy restrictions placed on that information.
These amendments to the Information Act proposed by this bill are intended to give clarity to government organisations that the information they hold is the property of the government, and should be able to be accessed by other government bodies to assist them in fulfilling their statutory responsibilities and obligations.
This is particularly so when information held by a public sector organisation would prevent the ongoing abuse or exploitation of a child, but cannot be disclosed due the privacy or confidentiality provisions of certain Territory legislation. If a public sector organisation requires information which attracts conditions of confidentiality or privacy under the Care and Protection of Children Act, Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act, Coroners Act, Domestic and Family Violence Act, Education Act, Health and Community Service Complaints Act, Ombudsman Act 2009, Public Interest Disclosure Act or a law prescribed by regulation, they will be able to request the holding entity to provide confidential information which directly relates to the requesting organisation’s responsibilities and obligations.
It also allows the holding entity to approve or deny that request in full, or partially. In the event information is refused, the requesting organisation can submit a request for review of decision to the minister. The minister may delegate this responsibility unless the information is directly related to child protection information. The process works in a similar way to the way a member of the public would access government information, but with time lines that reflect the fact operational requirements demand a more prompt response than the ridiculous times agencies regularly take when responding to an FOI request from a member of the public.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 18 August 2009.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I speak to the opposition’s bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend section 165 of the Ombudsman Act to extend the powers of the Ombudsman to look into matters relating to open police complaints commenced prior to the commencement of the Ombudsman Act but not completed at the time the act came into operation. The bill would not only capture inquiries or investigations about police conduct, but would also extend to inquiries and investigations about the administrative action of government departments commenced under the repealed Ombudsman legislation that had not been completed at the time the Ombudsman Act commenced.
Section 165 is a standard transitional provision similar to a number of other transitional provisions found in other Territory legislation, for example, Part 15 of the Taxation Administration Act. Section 165 of the Ombudsman Act ensures the procedural integrity of inquiries and investigations commenced under the repealed Ombudsman legislation but not completed upon the commencement of the Ombudsman Act continue to operate as if the former Ombudsman legislation had not been repealed.
The amendment proposed by the bill is retrospective in nature, and whilst it provides for the use of alternate dispute mechanisms such as conciliation and mediation under the Ombudsman Act, there is potential the amendments would have a substantial adverse effect on the rights of a person who is the subject of an inquiry or investigation. My advice is only a small percentage of total cases the Ombudsman deals with are affected by this amendment, and those particular cases are either already completed or nearing completion. To pass this amendment would press the reset button and could be considered a waste of time and resources to start these investigations again.
I have also received advice from the Ombudsman that she does not support this amendment for the same reasons I have just spoken about. Honourable members would agree the Ombudsman and her staff should be congratulated for their efforts in improving the quality of public administration and conduct of police officers through the resolution of complaints in such an efficient and effective manner.
Whilst there is no objection to the principle of the bill, based on the small number of cases this affects and the time it would extend these cases remaining open, it is considered there would be little practical benefit gained from the amendment.
Finally, legislation having retrospective effect should only be supported if it is necessary to avoid unfairness or to enable efficiency. Neither of those criteria would apply to this bill.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the bill the opposition has before this House at this point in time is not supported by the Ombudsman. She does not believe it would benefit that small number of cases which are either completed, or nearing completion. The government is unable to support this bill, given that, in consultation with the Ombudsman, she does not support this amendment. For those reasons, the government does not support the bill.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I find the argument does not convince, when the principle prescribed in the amendment is supported as the Chief Minister has described, then says it is not justified, however, because of the small number it would have little practical effect, and the Ombudsman does not support it. Taking it from another perspective, if the principle is supported and the small number, in fact, relate to complaints and concerns by individuals, though small in number, I do not believe it is a sufficient argument to discount this amendment.
The purpose is to deal with those matters which have been in existence for an extended period of time, and to bring some resolution to those specific cases. To make the judgment it has little practical effect is like saying you are walking along a beach - you know the old story - there are starfish all over the beach as a result of some storm or some catastrophe, some strange event, and there is a little boy walking along picking up starfish and throwing them into the sea and someone said to him: ‘What is the point of doing that when you look up and down the beach there are so many of them? What difference do you think you could make?’ He picked up another one and threw it into the sea and said: ‘It is going to make a large difference to this one’.
If we are saying it is a small number so therefore it will make little difference in the broader scheme of things, the Chief Minister and Police minister would well know the concerns of the individuals represented by this small number are significant, and it would make a big difference to that one, two or three.
Little practical effect? Perhaps not in the broad scheme of things, but it would have significant effect and benefit to those one, two, three or four. That is the point of this. If the principle is supported, I do not believe the argument that there are not enough to warrant it, it would not have much benefit - it would have a significant benefit to those that have given rise to this amendment.
It is disappointing to hear the Chief Minister has discounted the calls for assistance from those this amendment seeks to assist, and their calls have been discounted because there are not many. I do not think that is a particularly strong or good argument.
Madam Speaker, I urge members to provide their support for this amendment because it will make a big difference to those who have matters they seek resolution on.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 18 August 2009.Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the government certainly does not support this bill. The bill proposes to give a legislative stamp to what was CLP policy when it was in government. The CLP policy was mandatory life really meant, after serving 20 years, release could be considered by Cabinet on application of a lifer. This government introduced a fairer and more transparent system in 2004, bringing the Northern Territory into line with all other Australian jurisdictions.
The 2004 amendments enabled the Supreme Court to determine non-parole periods for persons convicted of murder, and leave the decision as to whether a lifer is released on parole, appropriately we believe, to the Parole Board. The Parole Board is an impartial body chaired by a Supreme Court judge comprised of professionals and community representatives. No other Australian jurisdiction has politicians presiding over which prisoners are to be released on parole.
This bill would see politicians presiding over which prisoners should be released on parole instead of the Supreme Court setting a non-parole period and the Parole Board considering parole after the expiry of that period. It would be effectively up to the Cabinet of the day to make a recommendation to the Administrator to exercise the prerogative of mercy. The prerogative of mercy has its place, but we do not support it as the only means by which a person convicted of murder can be released on licence. The problem with the scheme proposed in the bill is it has very real potential to result in prisoners not receiving equal consideration for parole, as they do when they come before a professional and impartial body such as the Parole Board, because political considerations could influence the recommendations made to the Administrator.
Apart from politicising the release of murderers on licence, this bill does nothing. The Leader of the Opposition stated in his second reading speech that:
This is highly misleading. The criteria under which the Administrator can remit the sentence have no reference to exceptional circumstance. They are exactly the same criteria as exist under section 53A of the Sentencing Act, which the Supreme Court currently applies in setting non-parole periods. Section 53A was part of the 2004 amendments enacted by this government.
Statements by the Leader of the Opposition in his second reading speech that anything less than a life sentence for murder diminishes the value of human life, misleadingly suggests life imprisonment is not currently the sentence for murder. It is. A person convicted of murder remains under sentence of imprisonment for life. They might be released on parole, but the sentence of life imprisonment continues and they are liable to be incarcerated again for any breach of parole.
Finally, the affect of this bill will be all murderers will not be treated equally. Those sentenced before the government’s amendments in 2004 will continue to have deemed non-parole periods of 20 or 25 years under the Sentencing (Crime Of Murder) and Parole Reform Act. Those sentenced since the 2004 amendments will retain the non-parole periods set out by the Supreme Court, and those sentenced after the enactment of the Sentencing Legislation Amendment (Crime of Murder) Bill 2009, should it be passed, will be subject to this new politicised regime.
Madam Deputy Speaker, for these very sound reasons the government does not support this bill which is simply politicisation of a very serious subject.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not support this bill, and I will give my reasons why. I supported the changes to the original sentencing procedures the government introduced a number of years ago, as I believed they were tough but fair, and I still support those changes.
The system being introduced today goes back to a system which, I believe, is out of step with approaches to dealing with murder in other parts of Australia. It is more about looking tough on crime rather than dealing with the reality of the existing legislation. In fact, it is probably a retrograde step when it comes to the quality of our justice system. We have some of the toughest legislation in Australia when it comes to dealing with the crime of murder. We could argue over some of the details of the legislation, but the facts are a murderer is still sentenced for life, however, according to circumstances for each individual case, a murderer can have their case for parole put before a parole board at 20 years, 25 years, or any other date set by a judge, or never get to a parole board because the prisoner is never to be released. Even though a prisoner may be eligible for parole, there is no guarantee they will be released, as seen in some recent cases. Even if released they are still convicted for life, and that is never removed. A breach of parole means they are back in prison.
The opposition bill sounds like they are attempting to introduce change to make the laws tougher by introducing the Administrator as the person who decides on a remission of sentence, so basically a prisoner is eligible for parole under the same rules as present. Strangely, the second reading does not mention the word Administrator, or any details surrounding the bill. If you read the second reading, you might be forgiven for thinking it was about media release, or a dissertation on crime and punishment - which is certainly a worthy philosophical topic for debate – however, it is not a second reading dealing specifically with the amendment before us, and does not show any decisive argument for changing the existing situation.
I believe this change makes the law weaker, not stronger, because it relies on the Administrator to make a decision and therefore presumes he has all the skills and knowledge to do so. At the moment we have a far better system. We have a parole board made up of citizens of the Northern Territory.
To give you an idea on why I believe the Parole Board is the most qualified to make a decision, I would like to read from the 2008 Parole Board report. I should make a comment: I have done everything to find the 2009 Parole Board report and it does not seem to be around. I am referring to the 2008 Parole Board report. The membership of the board, under the Parole of Prisoners Act, requires the board must have 10 members made up of the Chief Justice or another nominated judge, the Executive Director of Correctional Services, a member of the police force nominated by the Commissioner of Police, a person who is a registered medical practitioner or a registered psychologist, a person who represents the interests of victims of crime, and five persons who reflect, as closely as possible, the composition of the community at large and include women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
Members described in the last three categories are appointed by the Administrator for three year terms, are eligible for reappointment, and may resign their membership, in writing, to the minister. Although there are 10 appointed members, the constitution of the board by all members is only required for a matter relating to a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder.
The Chief Justice, or another judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice, is the chairman of the board. The Chief Justice nominated – and I am using names from 2008 – Justice Riley as chairman for the 2008 calendar year. Justice Southwood chaired two meetings during 2008. The minister may appoint a person to act as a member of the board while a member is not available, or there is a vacancy on the board.
During 2008, the membership of the board comprised Justice Trevor Riley, Chairman; Mr Ken Middlebrook, Executive Director of Correctional Services; Superintendent Carlon, an NT Police representative; Ms Susan Lowry, Victims of Crime representative; Mr Paul Rysavy, psychologist, Darwin; Mr John Flynn, Darwin; Ms Dawn Fleming, Alice Springs; Mr Alan Domaschenz, Katherine; Ms Jill Huck, Darwin; and Ms Patricia Miller, Alice Springs.
The functions of the board are it decides which prisoners with sentences including a non-parole period will be released on parole, sets the conditions of release, may vary the conditions of a parole order, and determines if and how a parole order should be revoked. In relation to the release of a prisoner, the Parole Board considers all cases where a prisoner’s sentence has a non-parole period specified by the court. A non-parole period is a minimum term of imprisonment during which an offender is not eligible to release from prison on parole.
This is the important part: for a matter relating to a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of life for the crime of murder, the standard non-parole period is 20 years, or 25 years in certain cases. There is also a provision for the court to consider exceptional circumstances to reduce, increase or refuse to set a non-parole period on such matters. The Parole Board has to consider a broad range of material when deciding whether to release a prisoner to parole.
The documentation will always include a parole report prepared by the assigned parole officer; an institutional report prepared by staff of the correctional centre or detention centre where the prisoner or detainee is held; a record of prior convictions; and a transcript of the Supreme Court sentencing remarks if the prisoner was sentenced in that court. The board may also consider such other reports as are relevant to the individual case including a pre-sentence report, psychological/psychiatric assessment and reports, medical assessments and reports, assessments and reports on substance misuse programs and treatment facilities, legal opinions, letters and/or reports from interstate services, letters from the prisoner, and letters from the victim or victim’s representative.
For matters relating to a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder, the board may also consider submissions from members of the victim’s family, or representatives from the community if the prisoner is an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander who identifies with a particular community. The Chairman may require prisoners to be brought before the board pursuant to sections 3G of the Parole of Prisoners Act. No prisoners were required to attend a board meeting during 2008.
Under section 5 of the act, the Parole Board has the discretion to direct the release of the prisoner on parole providing the time of release is after the exploration of the non-parole period. The board may decline to release the prisoner to parole, or defer consideration to a later meeting. Prisoners may also decline parole consideration.
Conditions of release, section 5(5)(a) of the Parole of Prisoners Act, requires a person released shall be subject to supervision and obey all reasonable direction of the appointed supervisor for the duration of the parole period. A variation of parole conditions states parole conditions can be changed at any time. Revocation: if a parolee fails to comply with conditions of parole order the supervising parole officer prepares a report for the board’s consideration setting out the circumstances of breach. The breaches fall into two categories: re-offending and conditional breach.
The other important thing, release on parole of a prisoner serving life imprisonment for murder – I presume this comes under the Sentencing Act - the section applies if the board is considering the release on parole of a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder. The board may invite persons to make submissions on the matter to the board, including the victims of crime, if the prisoner is an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander who identifies with a particular community of Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander representatives of that community.
In considering the matter, the board must have regard for the principle that the public interest is of primary importance and, in doing so, much give substantial weight to the following matters: the protection of the community is a paramount consideration - the likely effect of the prisoner’s release on the victim’s family and, if the prisoner is an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander, the likely effect of the prisoner’s release on that community.
The board must give reasons for any decision or direction on that matter, and those reasons must be included in proceedings kept under section 3F(7).
When the board meets to decide the fate of a person eligible for parole, the chairman shall preside at all meetings of the board at which he is present, and at that meeting a quorum is constituted by, for a matter relating to a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment for life for murder, the chairman and seven other members, or for matters relating to any other prisoners, the chairman and three other members. At the meeting of the board, questions of law are determined by the chairman, and questions other than questions of law concerning the release on parole of a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder, are to be determined by unanimity of votes.
In other cases, that is a majority. In the case of murder, you not only have a body which has to go through all these considerations, some of which are specialist considerations such as psychological reports, drug and alcohol reports – a whole range of things. The Parole Board has to deal with all of these issues and, at the same time, make a decision which is unanimous. I believe that is the better system. It is putting the decision into the hands of the community, a victim of crime, and a range of specialists. I believe that system is a fairer system than the one put forward today.
Madam Speaker, I believe the act is quite strong. For a prisoner with a life sentence it is a fairly difficult process to be given parole, and the system should be left in the hands of the Parole Board. It is made up of Territorians who represent a broad section of the community. I believe the decision should be left in their hands. Putting the decision into the hands of the Administrator has the opposite effect; it makes the process weaker. For those reasons, I do not support this amendment.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals are committed to delivering certainty in sentencing. Labor repealed the previous ‘life means life’ sentencing in 2003 which allowed prisoners to apply for parole after 20 or 25 years, or in some situations significantly less time. Certainty is important.
I acknowledge the arguments which have been made. However, I also acknowledge the underlying issue that needs to be dealt with to the satisfaction of the wider community. The Attorney-General used the term ‘politicians making the decision’, as though that demeaned the office of politician. I do not know why that would be so because the politician should be the reflection of the community standard. I believe that is a standard, or an ideal, which could be enhanced through that sense of responsibility one does bare when one takes such an office.
I hold that in mind, and I will not concede the point of the pejorative term politician being the strength of the argument: who are politicians to decide such matters. I do take a contrary view with regard to the status of the office, even thought we have cause, perhaps, to succumb to the view of some that it is not a high or noble office when in fact it is, even though there may be reason to take an alternate view.
The Country Liberals strongly opposed Labor’s changes to sentencing for murder at the time, particularly the provisions which allowed parole in what the minister described as truly exceptional circumstances. The effect of such was to reduce that notion of certainty. That certainty sits in the context of the loss of a life, and the need to have the value of that lost life reinforced as a standard external from the individual stories in and around the case, particularly for the one left the perpetrator - the murderer. The opposition is left pondering how best to reinforce that, to meet that community expectation and reinforce that standard, the value of life.
The bill removes the 3-in-1 sentencing regime introduced under Labor to confirm a life sentence is for life. The ability for a person’s character to be the grounds for parole prior to 25 years will be abolished, as will the Parole Board’s role in applications for the crime of murder. The only exception would be the granting of a special licence for release by the Administrator after 20 or 25 years, depending on the circumstances of the crime and, then, it would only be in the most exceptional circumstances.
Territorians, whether they are the general public or a prisoner, need to know the sentence determined by the court in relation to a crime is the sentence the offender will complete. The continual undermining of the court’s decisions affect the stability of law and order in the community and the faith of families of victims - in this instance, a person who takes the life of a loved one receives a sentence consummate with the crime committed; that is, life for life.
Certainty in sentencing is not an issue of vengeance for crime; it is an issue of maintaining and reinforcing a very important principle and value standard in our community. It is ensuring severity, and the impact the crime had on the victim and society at large, is not diminished due to the skill of the defence lawyer to demonstrate good character, or call convincing witnesses to appeal to a parole board.
There is any number of diversionary, rehabilitation or education programs which provide second chances and divert people in high-risk domestic violence situations that are often the catalyst for murders in the Territory. There should be no second chances for a murderer. They have certainly provided no second chance for their victim.
Listening to the responses, particularly from the member for Nelson, has given me cause to consider perhaps there is some room to move. It caused me to consider if the special licence for release is to be provided by the Administrator under this circumstance, advice is being provided by the Cabinet, which is the executive arm of government representing the people. However - this is to foreshadow an area of consideration - what I am concerned about is the outsourcing of responsibility. That sets a precedent I am uncomfortable with, when you have the need to preserve institutions’ values and principles. The outsourcing of responsibility to a parole board, at arms length from government, is of concern to me. I need to investigate how that could be remedied.
Perhaps a way around this could be where the parole board, in its deliberations and considerations as described by the member for Nelson, could weigh the matter, the recommendation would be unanimous, and that recommendation be made to Cabinet for the ultimate decision on the matter. Essentially, I have a concern about the outsourcing of responsibility. We have seen that as a dangerous trend in government. You have all the institutions, and responsibility is outsourced here, there, and everywhere. Ultimately, you do not find the place where responsibility resides. Where does that ultimate responsibility reside? I believe the expression of the people, through our democratic process, ultimately, resides - and should reside - with government. Therefore, there may be some room to move in this area.
It is a space we will not vacate because of the need to reinforce those important principles about the value of life to those around the life lost; that life does have meaning by the response shown by the institutions and the mechanisms we have to reinforce such principles.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge honourable members to support this amendment, notwithstanding the indication I have given that there may well be room for movement because I sense it is not going to proceed through the Chamber. Nonetheless, we will continue to look for a way through in the best interests of our community.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 18 August 2009.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support this bill. We have had debates in this regard in the past, so I am sure our lack of support does not come as a surprise to the member for Araluen.
The bill proposes an amendment to section 127 of the Criminal Code Act, sexual intercourse or gross indecency with a child under 16, to provide what is known as a Romeo and Juliet clause; a defence of similarity of age. This bill provides a defence to the person charged with the offence of having sexual intercourse with a child under 16.
In her second reading speech of Tuesday, 18 August 2009, the member for Araluen stated repeatedly that this bill: seeks to provide a defence to a person who is prosecuted as a result of failure to report pursuant to proposed amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act. She claimed this bill provides a defence for a person prosecuted under section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act. We contend the bill does no such thing.
The member for Araluen has completely confused two very separate offences. On the one hand, it is an offence under section 127 of the Criminal Code to have sexual intercourse with, or commit an act of gross indecency, upon a child under 16. On the other hand, it is an offence under section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act to fail to report suspected child abuse, or the suspected commission of sexual offences in certain circumstances. Section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act provides for a defence of reasonable excuse.
If the member for Araluen’s bill was passed, no doubt it would be a reasonable excuse for a person not to report suspected sexual intercourse where the person committing the act could rely on a defence of similarity of age. However, this is an indirect and unnecessary way of achieving the aim stated by the member for Araluen.
The government amendments to section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, which were passed during the August 2009 sittings of the Legislative Assembly, directly ensure there is no obligation to report sexual activity involving a child 14 years or over where there is no more than two years of age difference between the child and the sexual partner.
Turning specifically to contents of the bill, by requiring proof of the absence of coercion, the proposed subsection (4A)(c) essentially introduces a requirement for proof of consent to the act of sexual intercourse or gross indecency. Consent is not an element of an offence under section 127 and therefore it cannot form part of a defence to the offence. The offence is complete upon the act of sexual intercourse or gross indecency upon the child under 16. If there is coercion, the appropriate offence is under a different section - section 192.
It is noted the model Criminal Code defence of similarity of age, and such defences in other jurisdictions, do not require proof of absence of coercion or proof of consent. The government believes it is entirely inappropriate to amend the Criminal Code in order to provide a defence for an offence under a completely different piece of legislation. The government has already dealt with this issue by making the appropriate amendments to section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will not be supporting this bill.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, you are right: it does not come as a surprise. I am interested to read the Hansard of the Attorney-General’s comments because - I should qualify this - some of it did not seem to make sense or be correct.
The purpose of this bill was not to provide a defence to section 127 or section 192 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of the bill was to provide a defence for those who failed to report under - I think it is acknowledged on both sides as badly worded - section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act. The objective was to create certainty. I do not believe, and I am not alone - I have spoken with the Law Society, from memory - it is not agreed that certainty should accompany any piece of Legislation. We thought it appropriate, and still do, given section 26, that a defence should be provided so people of the Northern Territory, in particular health practitioners, whom you will recall were variously confused about the unintended consequences of section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, were clear about it. There was much confusion. We simply sought to correct that confusion, and we have another bill as well. We thought it was important, and we were not alone, that a clear defence be established. Quite a bit of work was involved with Parliamentary Counsel to get to a position where we, with a high level of confidence, brought the bill before the House.
Our bill proposed it would be a defence to a prosecution under changes proposed to section 26(1) of the Care and Protection of Children Act, namely a failure to report if a person believes, on reasonable grounds, that a child has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence or has otherwise suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm or exploitation. The defence is if the relevant child was of or over 14 years of age, if the difference between the accused person and the child is no more than two years, thus encapsulating the similarity of age defence used in some other jurisdictions, and provided there is no coercion of the child. We did not see the way it is worded now provided people, particularly health practitioners, with a defence in the event they fail to report.
I believe the Attorney-General indicated I had the wrong end of the stick initially. I stress I want to read the Hansard, however I am not sure you have the right end of the stick, Attorney-General. I know the government will not support it, so there is not much point taking up time. I thank everyone involved, both inside this building and outside, who helped in the preparation of this bill.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 18 August 2009.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Honourable members will undoubtedly recall debate in parliament in August last year on the government’s Care and Protection of Children Amendment Act 2009.
This debate focused on the government’s amendments to section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act relating to mandatory reporting obligations. The government’s bill to amend section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act was passed, with the support of the opposition.
We now have amendments put forward by the member for Araluen, a number of which are very problematic. A significant concern, carefully considered and resolved within the government’s amendment to section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act was the difficult situation parents, relatives and friends can be placed in if they are required to report to the authorities all sexual activity involving underage teenagers, irrespective of context. Within the government’s amendments, it remains a requirement to report any situation where a child may be at risk of harm or exploitation. This is, and always will be, our key focus.
The government’s amendments also addressed the situation where a child is engaged in sexual activity with an adult who sits in a relationship of ‘special care’ to the child. This is a relationship of trust, such as a teacher, sporting coach or health professional, where there can be a risk of abuse of the relationship and exploitation of the child.
The law now requires health practitioners to report sexual offences in children who are 14 or 15-years old, where the age difference between the two children is more than two years. The opposition amendment does not consider this need for discretion, and requires all people to report sexual offences in children over 14. This amendment would take us back to the very situation which raised serious community concerns around universal reporting obligations under the Care and Protection of Children Act early in the year. The opposition amendment would mean anyone, including a parent, who becomes aware a 15-year-old child is sexually active, would need to consider six elements and determine whether they are required to make a report.
The six elements are: the sexual act occurred after the relevant child attained the age of 14; the age difference between the relevant child and the other child is no more than two years; the other child is not a brother, half brother, sister or half sister of the relevant child; the other child did not coerce the relevant child to participate in a sexual act; neither person is liable to prosecution for an offence related to a sexual act, for example, procuring the relevant child to participate in a sexual act; and, the relevant child has not been caused harm, and is not likely to be caused harm by participating in a sexual act, or as a consequence of participating in a sexual act. Reading these elements I believe they are very complex. It is simply not realistic to expect ordinary members of the community to be able to apply the six-stage test.
I would like to consider one of these six elements in more detail, and that is the criteria which states the other child is not a brother, half brother, sister or half sister of the relevant child. This level of prescription seems unnecessary. On one reading, this implies if an individual becomes aware an uncle, aunt, or other relative of similar age is involving a child in sexual activity, the individual does not need to make a notification. I ask my colleagues to reflect on how comfortable they are with this element being a part of the legislation.
A further concern is the reference, in the opposition’s bill, to a child not being a victim of a sexual offence if the six-stage test in the bill is satisfied. It is not the purpose of the Care and Protection of Children Act to define criminal offences, nor is it about decriminalising certain sexual offences in the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code provides specific sexual offence provisions which relate to children. The definition of a sexual offence is quite detailed, and is found by cross-reference to the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act.
It is misleading and confusing to describe the relevant child in the bill as being: not the victim of a sexual offence. The purpose of section 26 is to relieve people of mandatory reporting obligations in relation to sexual offences in certain circumstances. The opposition’s bill confuses the obligation to report harm and/or exploitation of children with the commission of a criminal act under either the Criminal Code or the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. Again, this is too complicated for ordinary citizens to have to understand in order to know whether they should make a report.
I would also like to consider the use of the word ‘coercion’ within the amendment. Specifically, the amendment points to the issue of coercion needing to be considered by a notifier to determine if a sexual offence has occurred. The concept of coercion is not one which sits easily outside the context of the criminal law. Coercion is a legal concept relevant to the commission of sexual offences involving the absence of consent. These offences are commonly known as rape, or in the case children under the age of consent, underage sex.
Introducing this concept into legislation other than the Criminal Code has the potential to undermine criminal laws in the Territory. If this bill is passed by the House, the result would be we would have the Care and Protection of Children Act which says a child is not a victim of a sexual offence in these circumstances. We would also have the Criminal Code which says a child is a victim of a sexual offence in these different circumstances. Which one is right? How much confidence can members of the pubic have in the laws, and in this House as a law-making body, if we allow this to happen?
Requiring a reporter, under section 26, to consider the issue of coercion when deciding whether notification is required, adds an unsafe and complicated level to decision-making. This is particularly so given the dynamics of child sexual abuse are complex. The relationship between an abuser and a victim is rarely simple. The coercion element of the six-stage test required by the member for Araluen is not one the ordinary citizen can reasonably be expected to apply.
The member for Araluen also used the term ‘sexual act’. This is a new term – it does not appear in the Criminal Code or other related legislation. A sexual act is defined as: includes sexual intercourse, sexual penetration, and any other act of a sexual nature. This definition of sexual act is extremely broad. A person who is uncertain whether to report needs to address whether an act of a sexual nature has occurred. Again, this attempt at including new definitions only contributes confusion and complexity.
As I mentioned before, the Care and Protection of Children Act makes reference to a defined concept; that of a sexual offence. To introduce a further definition which ordinary citizens will be required to familiarise themselves with simply creates additional obligations. Reporters have to turn their mind to what it means to have engaged in any other act of a sexual nature in order to determine whether they have a reasonable belief a sexual offence has been, or is likely to be, committed.
Another flaw with the opposition’s bill is the concept of retrospectivity. This is not good public policy. Laws made by the parliament have a direct impact on the rights and liabilities of its citizens. It has the potential to make citizens liable for an act or omission after they have lawfully performed such an act or omission. To make something unlawful after it has been lawful, or vice versa, creates confusion in society and uncertainty in the laws of the parliament. The proposed amendments are unnecessary, unwieldy, complicated and potentially confusing.
The government’s amendment which brought clarity to this situation was only recently passed in August last year. As I outlined previously, education tools have been developed and community education has commenced. The consultation process in relation to regulations has occurred, and I look forward to reporting back on the results.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support this bill.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, once again, no surprise. I guess there is something to be said for asking three or four lawyers the same question - you will get three or four different responses. That is the nature of things legal, I guess. I do not propose to repeat everything I said on 18 August when I introduced this bill, however it should be said the Law Society was supportive of the bill, and I am sure they did not get it wrong.
I could not hear all of the minister’s response, and I will look through the Hansard. Members will recall this bill arose as a result of unintended consequences of the way section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act was drafted. The government sought to remedy that problem by introduction of the Care and Protection of Children Bill (Serial 49), which was debated on 20 August last year. The points I made in that debate were made when I introduced the bill we are debating. The fact is, we have not been satisfied, so we disagree with the minister. Our view is the government’s proposal could have been so much better. I said, on 18 August:
I am not shocked. I did hear the minister mention the six criteria we established in our bill. My view is six clear criteria are better than not articulating the reasons in the six criteria we proposed. We believe certainty is required in all legislation, particularly potentially sensitive legislation such as this. We are also concerned with the difficulty, which I maintain exists, in the government’s bill; that is, what about the children who are over 14 years of age but under 16 years of age? As I said on 18 August, the government’s act, as it now is, does not really contemplate or provide for children between 14 and 16. I said at the time:
Children in that age group are still not adequately provided for in the bill. We sought to remedy that, along with other parts.
This is relevant to the bill we are debating now, and I informally put the minister on notice of it. When we were debating the government’s bill, serial 49, on 20 August 2010, we went into committee stage. There were discussions about the regulations the then minister was going to provide which would fill in some gaps as a result of the legislation the government initiated to remedy problems with section 26. I spent some time quizzing her about the regulations, and I asked what other people fall within the proposed regulations. As is not uncommon, the minister said: ‘We are going to fix it up with regulations and we will get there eventually’.
We are often asked to say yes to things where we do not have the regulations to consider, hence my questioning about the consultation involved in getting the regulations done and dusted, and what sort of time frames the minister would afford herself. She said:
They are the very regulations which are the other component to the government’s amendment to remedy the deficiencies of the original clause 26. I kept questioning her and she said:
The end of the year was clearly a disaster for the minister, which is why she is no longer the minister for this portfolio.
I wrote to the new minister. We have exchanged several letters, however the one I have in my file is dated 5 February 2010. I asked when regulations would be forthcoming that would set out how mandatory reporting was to be dealt with by professions other than the health profession. In my letter of 5 February I said it was indicated these would be forthcoming without delay. I asked for the status of these regulations and, if possible, a copy.
The minister responded and said, in essence, they are not ready yet. I replied asking why. I do not believe I have received a response to that letter. I raised the issue because it was the other component to fix this problem, and where are we, May? I know the wheels of government grind ever so slowly, but that is a long time. I would be grateful if the minister could discuss this with me, or write to me so I know why this problem, which was so significant in August 2009, is apparently no longer as significant.
I have to put this on the Parliamentary Record, minister; in relation to this bill, and another bill on the Notice Paper, you wrote to me on 8 April 2010, as result of us bumping into each other in the mall, and you asked whether I would withdraw or withhold the bills. The minister said:
I wrote back a polite, but short letter which said:
The minister has one foot in both camps on this issue. He has said in media interviews he cannot wait, it is urgent; things have to be done. On the other hand, we will wait until the board of inquiry. Try to reconcile that with the budgetary allocation in yesterday’s budget. He is having a bob each way, and that is his prerogative.
If you read the findings of Greg Cavanagh released in January this year in relation to two inquests members will realise he proposed changes to the legislation. If he did not say so specifically, it was certainly by implication that these changes should be made now. Part of the reason the child protection system is in such a mess is that government ministers, over the years, have such a hands-off approach.
If there was a crime of political negligence several of you would be done because it is unimaginable, if you knew what was happening, you would not have acted. It tends to suggest either you were not told, or you did not want to know. I would have thought ministers would have wanted to know so much more; should have known so much more. I know some of the senior bureaucrats have gone, however I still do not believe that is a satisfactory excuse. I know those at the top of the bureaucracy tend to get paid more than ministers. You still get your ministerial salary. I think the member for Arafura was the best of all of you, however, almost without exception you have all been appalling in child protection.
When the Coroner of the Northern Territory, in two very significant child protection cases, gives you the sections of the act which need amendment, and given the sentiments from government and the new minister are: ‘I am going to fix this problem, it is urgent, it cannot wait, blah, blah, blah’, I was shocked you would ask me to hold off?’. We think things can be done now. That is why, late last year, we released a policy. Was it everything that needed to be done? No, because we accept the board, with whom I have met - I am not sure you had met with them at the time, minister. I know they are going to make a number of recommendations. I believe their recommendations, having talked to members of the board, will really shake up the system. From some of the discussions we had I am uncertain I am going to be supportive of all of them. The board is going to really shake up the child protection system, and I believe most of us agree that is what is required. I do not accept, nor do my colleagues, that we should sit around and not do anything until the board of inquiry delivers its recommendations.
There has been a delay. I believe 30 June is when the board is going to release its recommendations. I understand from the chair the recommendations might be in several stages. It might not be the big bang on 30 June; it might be over weeks or months after that date. I do not want to sound melodramatic, however, I do not believe children in care of the minister, or as it is these days the CEO, can wait. I do not believe the coroner had that in mind when he delivered his findings in January. We are not happy, and I do not believe you should be either, minister.
Having put those matters on the Parliamentary Record, I cannot push this matter any more. I thank the minister for his contribution, and can I take this opportunity, minister, of thanking you. We get on well, and we are committed to this area. Even though we will at times very strongly disagree, I believe the spirit with which we have dealt with each other thus far has been good for both of us.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 25 November 2009.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Deputy Speaker, my predecessor spoke on this motion in Alice Springs in support. I want to place on the record we continue to support the motion by the member for Araluen.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you participated in this debate in November.
Member for Macdonnell, you have 17 minutes remaining. Debate was suspended at the time of those sittings, so the clock will be set to 17 minutes. You have the call.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, six months is a long time to remember the things I said. I have had a quick look at it, and things have not changed in Alice Springs in those six months. It has become worse.
I know the member for Braitling has done much work, and I believe he has worked with the Minister for Public and Affordable Housing in looking at empty houses in Alice Springs. Certainly, the increase in violence in Territory Housing homes is not just Indigenous people to non-Indigenous people; there are many complaints coming from Indigenous neighbours as well.
I want to place on the public record the two different living styles we have introduced not only in Katherine, but in Tennant Creek, and also in Alice Springs. It is saying to people it is okay to have two standards. You have Territory Housing, you have this other style of living, and you have the town camps. Because the town camps are so low in repairs and maintenance and behaviour, people who come in expect to behave and live in that standard of accommodation. I believe we have to be brave enough in this House to talk and take action, and normalise the behaviour and conditions these people are living in.
Why can someone not do that? We now have the shires; it is a whole electorate, all with their hub towns. All could have one standard of living in a community which does not change when you come to live in Alice Springs. One standard; instead we have three different standards.
We have one standard of conditions when living in remote Aboriginal communities, and then you have two standards when you come into town. You have the choice of going to make a nuisance of yourself and live in overcrowded conditions in Territory Housing and humbug your neighbours, or live in a town camp in houses with up to 30 to 40 people. I know in house 13 and 14 at Hoppy’s Camp, at all times there are over 30 people inside Dicky Brown’s house, and inside the next house. Every journalist in this country has been to those two houses at Hoppy’s Camp and looked at them, looked at the conditions, and the way the people live.
That humbug pours out into the streets of Alice Springs. It does not stay at Hoppy’s Camp, it does not stay at Morris Soak, it does not stay at Larapinta, or Hidden Valley, or Indapa, or Karnte, or Little Sisters. It does not stay in that vicinity; it pours out into the streets of Alice Springs.
It is the same with antisocial behaviour in Territory Housing; it does not stay inside the house. It pours out into the street, and it humbugs neighbours next door, all the way down the street. I live at 51 Patterson Crescent, Alice Springs and I can hear people fighting and screaming in Lyndavale. The distance would be from parliament to the middle of the mall. You can imagine the elderly, the young, non-Indigenous people, Indigenous people, all being humbugged by these groups, or gangs of people who just come in, no money to get home on the bush bus, or staying until next week’s football. That is the kind of behaviour we are talking about.
We have three standards of living conditions, three standards of housing in all our regional towns like Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs. I suggest, now we have the shires, we have one standard, one stream, so people moving in from Papunya and accessing the services in Alice Springs know the conditions they enter Alice Springs on; that they behave. If they are in an overcrowded situation, either in a town camp or Territory Housing, they have respect for the town, their neighbours, and for the street.
That is the real problem, and Alice Springs has not seen any discussion on it since we had this debate in Alice Springs. It has become a very serious situation. It was reported recently a police officer had been hit outside the Royal Flying Doctor, and there was a gang of non-Indigenous and Sudanese fighting with bats outside Kentucky Fried Chicken. Unless we are brave enough to set the town in the right direction nothing is going to change. If we keep sweeping the problems people speak about underneath the carpet, the rubbish underneath the carpet is going to get bigger and bigger. It will turn into a mountain, it will turn into a volcano, and then it will explode.
It is important we talk about these issues and address them in a manner appropriate and necessary to alleviate the pressure the town is feeling at the moment. The town feels it every day.
Earlier I spoke about the town being cleaned up for certain people when they come into town; for example, the Chief Minister and the Police Commissioner. You have to see the problems we, as residents, see every day. You have to see the problems 24 hours at Royal Flying Doctor and Kentucky Fried Chicken because that is what people are complaining about. It cannot be cleaned up because someone else is coming into town for four hours or six hours. People can only make an informed decision - and the right decision - based on evidence in front of them. If they see a clean town with no humbug, no drunks, or no fighting, they are not informed to make the right decision on behalf of the residents of Alice Springs. They will make decisions based on the spin and propaganda someone else gives them.
Instead of going in for four to six hours, that person should stay for the weekend - go in on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, fly out Monday. You will see the real problems - the real problems that come out of Alice Springs; the real problems we, as residents, see every day. All you have to do is go to the little square near the Royal Flying Doctor Service between the hospital and Kentucky Fried Chicken and you will see people accumulating, people abusing each other, and kids under the age of 12-years-old walking around at 2 am.
On the Lightning Carnival weekend, there were two police officers standing at the town council and security standing outside Kentucky Fried Chicken, and they could not do anything. You could have pulled every police officer out that night, and you would not have been able to do anything in Alice Springs because the crowd was massive. There were over 300 people - kids included - walking around at 2 am. I was sitting inside the car at Kentucky Fried Chicken. I watched it all. I sat with a lady from Barunga and she watched it as well. These are the real problems Alice Springs faces every day. People can only make informed decisions, and the right decisions for Alice Springs, based on being informed and seeing things properly.
Territory Housing is just appalling; it is appalling. If they cannot look after the towns, how are they supposed to look after the communities? The communities are struggling. There are two elderly ladies, Yinku and Martha, at Docker River, who live in a humpy and pay rent to Territory Housing - absolutely disgraceful. These are people who have paid their dues to society. These are people who are in their seventies and eighties, and ought not to worry about Territory Housing taking over their housing, or not doing the repairs and maintenance. Territory Housing has the power to evict anyone and say to them: ‘You are going to go to crisis accommodation; you can no longer live here’.
The announcement made on the Tyeweretye Club accommodation - cheap accommodation, crisis accommodation, quick response to a huge problem in Alice Springs - do you think the alcoholics living in the creeks and up in the hills will use that accommodation? No, they will not, because it is dry. You are not allowed to go there drunk, or drink there, and you are not allowed to take dogs. Those people are there for one reason only, and that is to drink alcohol and get drunk.
We will target another group. The only people who will use that accommodation are people who come into town. They may not want to stay in the Territory Housing house with their families any more, but will take the cheap option of staying there while they are visiting their children at Yirara, visiting family on dialysis, or visiting their sons in gaol. You will get those people, but you will not get people who are in the creeks and hills of Alice Springs who are a huge humbug. Territory Housing really needs something at this moment to help alleviate the problem.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not specifically talking about the issues per se in Alice Springs, however an area mentioned in this motion was improving eviction processes for public housing tenants. That is an area the government needs to look at.
As people might know, there have been some changes to the Caravan Park act, and one of the constant criticisms of that act is it is difficult, at times, to remove people from a caravan if they are causing problems. My understanding is it is difficult sometimes for the government, which uses the Residential Tenancies Act as its methodology, to remove people from public housing. That process can be very slow, and can be very difficult, especially when people are able to access lawyers who turn it into quite a complex process. You find people who are a nuisance end up in the premises again, which is what you are trying to stop.
The government needs to look at the process available for people who are disruptive, and whether it can be made more efficient. If the system is not working, and people who should not be in those houses are there because of a long-winded process which gets tangled up in court, then the system needs reviewing.
I raise it not only in relation to this issue, but also the issue raised by caravan park owners in regard to long-term residency, which is an area that needs reviewing.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have several things. The new minister, the member for Johnston, said he supports our motion. We sought clarification from the Clerk and there is nothing preventing the member for Johnston contributing to this debate. It seems he rose, perhaps as a matter of courtesy, with words to the effect of: ‘I agree with what the other bloke said’. He is the new minister and presumably has some vision on how to get things done, how to fix yet another component of the Northern Territory which is busted pretty much - public housing. He did not want to contribute. I was surprised, as were my colleagues. I know the member for Braitling was very surprised. Maybe in adjournment tonight the minister, if he does feel strongly about the issue of housing, which you would expect being the housing minister, might want to outline why he did not contribute to this debate.
Members will remember in November a motion we put forward was the Assembly acknowledge ongoing problems with some public housing tenants who continued to interfere with the quiet enjoyment of others by antisocial behaviour, and second, the Chief Minister show his support for Alice Springs by addressing public housing issues, including providing more public housing and improved eviction processes for tenants who breach the terms of their leases.
The then minister, who failed so dismally and needed to be replaced, I note sits next to the member for Arnhem, who failed so dismally in child protection she needed to be replaced. How many chairs can you put on the sinking Titanic when there are only a few of you? The member for Arafura has said she is unwilling or, for personal reasons, unable be a minister. I do not know about the member for Nhulunbuy. What back-bencher do we have? The member for Fannie Bay is perhaps a little new; however you cannot continue with this series of disasters because you will run out of ministers.
The new minister who, several years ago was referred to by my colleague, the member for Greatorex, as a failed minister for Health, is now the minister for housing. It really would be very funny if it was not so serious. We now have a new minister replacing a bad minister for Health, who replaced the minister for Housing, who is really bad who, coincidentally, sits next to another really bad minister because she was replaced as the minister for Child Protection. Around and around it goes.
The then minister who was replaced, the member for Daly, said in the Alice Springs sittings in November he supported our motion, and we thank him for that.
I will get back to the member for Johnston, however. Some notes I took on 25 November will assist me put things on the Parliamentary Record the then minister did not discuss in his contribution, perhaps by accident, perhaps deliberately. He talked about the review of the Residential Tenancies Act, and that it would include the Antisocial Behaviour bill, as it did in about 2005. That was one of so many which arrived with great fanfare. That was the one Peter Toyne and Elliot McAdam said would fix everything and it is clear, a few years down the track, it has not. From memory, the then minister did talk about the review of the Residential Tenancies Act. My questions to him - and no doubt he will get these questions at estimates - are: has the review started, when will it be finished, when can we expect to see a new act, and will it be considerably better than the failed legislation it will hopefully improve?
The minister, in November, provided details on the number of unoccupied houses in Alice Springs. At that time 54 were being worked on, 23 were being repaired, and 19 were awaiting contractors. I will return to this. He did not answer how many houses had been unoccupied for three months. I am sure that was an issue which came up in the course of the debate. If I am wrong, no doubt others will correct me. I am fairly sure we asked how many houses were unoccupied, and how many had been unoccupied for a period of three months. We do not believe a three month unoccupancy rate is reasonable. We are interested in how many houses there are, and how many have been unoccupied for three months or more.
The new housing minister indicated, in either a radio interview or a newspaper - my notes say 3 February - there were 53 empty houses, and 17 were being worked on. I would like to know, as I am sure my colleagues the members for Greatorex and Braitling would, the current number of houses empty because they are being repaired. It is unsatisfactory. We know it. In October last year we had a good debate about housing in the Territory, and members from both sides talked about how it was unsatisfactory to have public housing dwellings empty, and how we did need to make them available for people to rent as soon as possible. There is no political difference on that issue. It is just the government is really bad at it and needs to improve.
The member for Johnston has spent some special time with the member for Braitling and, to his credit, hopped into a car with the member for Braitling and others and toured the electorate to see many houses which were unoccupied, and the extent of their disrepair. I am not privy to private and confidential discussions between the member for Johnston and the member for Braitling, however I gained the impression from the member for Braitling the minister was very pleased he could see these houses for himself.
The member for Greatorex, the member for Braitling and I held a media conference at an unoccupied public housing residence several months ago. We gave media a list of houses in our electorates - it was not a comprehensive list - and we said it was the number of empty public houses we picked up from a quick drive through our electorate. The bottom line is there are too many. At our media conference we went to a house where the grass was about that high. Coincidently, only the day before the member for Greatorex had a complaint from a constituent, a young mum with little kids, who was very concerned because of all the rain we had in Alice Springs there were snakes. I think a constituent of the member for Greatorex came across a snake. Why are those houses not being properly maintained? It is a public safety, public health issue, and it is just not good enough.
Although this minister failed with health, if he is committed to doing better than his predecessor - and I know the bar is pretty low - I would have thought he would look at where the hard-working people in the department are failing. There is no doubt they are failing in some respects because of the number of empty houses, and their state of disrepair. Something is not right and the minister for Housing clearly needs to fix it.
I would encourage the new minister for Housing to come to Alice Springs as often as possible. We both have outstandingly fabulous taste in music, which brings us a little together. I would not mind sharing a car with the member for Johnston, briefly, if he would like to accompany me around my electorate. We could put a CD on as we were driving around the electorate of Araluen; a bit of Leonard Cohen, a bit of Bob Dylan - we could set the scene. I would like the minister to visit my electorate. There is a sameness of issues with our urban electorates in Alice Springs.
The member for Nelson contributed briefly to this debate. He raised the issue of the review of the Residential Tenancies Act, and made some link to the caravan parks legislation which was debated in the last sittings.
The member for Nelson cannot keep having it both ways. He did not have the courage to take on a ministerial position in an Australian Labor Party-led government. Instead, I suspect driven by fear – and if I am wrong, no doubt he will correct me - he chose to sit on the sidelines so, when government did good things - and all governments do good things occasionally - the member for Nelson could say: ‘They are my guys’. When the government does bad things, he could say: ‘It has nothing to do with me’. People can say many things about every minister on the other side of this parliament - and, by God, I have; for eight-and-a-half, nine years, and I have meant every word of it. However, what they do have going for them is, right or wrong, they have the guts to make decisions. That is where the member for Nelson is on a sad, lonely, pathetic island. You, in political terms, live or die by the decisions you make, and ministers on the other side know that better than anyone.
For one member of parliament - the UFO-watching, chicken farmer from Howard Springs - to attach himself to this government which is overseeing a busted, pretty much everything, is unconscionable - and I am not saying anything new. I said it on 14 August. I made it very clear he had made, in my view, the wrong decision. If he wants to speed up the review of the Residential Tenancies Act or, indeed, wants any other outcome from government, have the guts to take on a ministerial position and sit in the Cabinet and make what must be, I am sure, on many occasions some very difficult decisions. It is sheer gutlessness to sit on the sidelines and have a bob each way. However, that is the member for Nelson. How on earth he can support this appalling government is beyond me. A lack of courage can, I guess, produce peculiar outcomes. This is certainly one very peculiar outcome.
In any event, I thank the former minister, terrible though he was, for supporting the statement. I lament the fact the new minister has not contributed. He did, at least, indicate his support for this motion, for which I thank him. I look forward to a musical tour through my electorate in due course. He can bring his own CDs. Most importantly, we could go around my electorate and see some of the housing problems which are of great concern, not just to me, but much more importantly, to the people I serve.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I indicate the government will not be supporting this bill.
The bill proposes to introduce a new offence titled Causing Death and Serious Harm Through Driving While Affected by Alcohol into the Criminal Code. This proposed new offence covers much the same ground as the existing offence of Driving Motor Vehicle Causing Death or Serious Harm contained in section 174F of the Criminal Code. The proposed offence is designed to be inserted, almost immediately after section 174F, in the Criminal Code.
Section 174F currently provides that a person who drives a motor vehicle dangerously, and whose conduct causes the death of someone, is liable for a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. If the victim suffers serious harm, the maximum penalty is seven years. There is no mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and no mandatory licence disqualification. However, the court has the power, under section 98 of the Sentencing Act, to make a disqualification order.
If a person was under the influence of alcohol or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, section 174F(3)(a) provides this amounts to dangerous driving. There are similar provisions in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory.
Section 174F was introduced into the Criminal Code in December 2006 as part of the amendments reforming the law on homicide and endangerment offences. Prior to its introduction, the Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction in Australia which did not have a dangerous driving causing death offence. There was only the catchall offence of dangerous act, formerly section 154 of the Criminal Code.
Section 174F was designed, in part, to overcome the difficulty which existed in prosecuting driving cases under section 154 where, even if the prosecution could prove the driver was intoxicated, a further dangerous act also needed to be proved. The Director of Public Prosecutions advises section 174F has had that desired outcome.
I turn now to the contents of the bill. The key features of the proposed offence are that a driver will be criminally liable if a crash results from a driver breaching an Australian road rule, for example, speeding, failing to indicate, failing to give way, and the crash causes death or serious harm to someone, and the driver has a blood alcohol content of 0.15% or more, or fails to submit to breath analysis or provide a blood sample. There is no need to prove any connection between the crash and the consumption of alcohol. This is a problem. The maximum penalty for the proposed offence is 10 years imprisonment if death is caused, and seven years if serious harm is caused. In either case, the offender must serve a minimum term of 12 months imprisonment, and the court must disqualify the offender from having or obtaining a drivers licence for a period of 12 months.
The member for Braitling, in his second reading speech, implied the proposed offence would only apply to persons who have a drink-driving conviction, quote: ‘If you have not learned your lesson and kill or maim someone, this bill prescribes you must serve a minimum sentence of one year …’. However, as drafted, this bill does not have this limitation.
Statistics obtained from the Research and Statistics Unit at the Department of Justice show there have been 11 convictions under the current section 174F. In most cases, the minimum penalty has exceeded that proposed in the bill. In the one case in which a fully suspended sentence was imposed, the offender’s blood alcohol reading was 0.074%. He had no prior convictions and it appears the victim, who was a passenger in his vehicle, contributed to the crash. This example highlights not only the changes proposed by the bill are unnecessary, but another problem with this proposed offence, that of proportionality.
This bill, by imposing a mandatory minimum sentence, does not allow the sentencing court to consider proportionality. The problem of proportionality is exacerbated in the bill even further because there is no requirement for a nexus, a connection between the intoxication and the crash, and also, the same mandatory minimum is proposed whether the resulting harm is death or serious harm. In relation to this issue of nexus, the dangerous driving causing death offences in New South Wales and Western Australia provide that a person with a blood alcohol reading of 0.15% or more is deemed to be incapable of controlling a motor vehicle.
However, unlike the bill, the offences in those jurisdictions provide a statutory defence, namely, if the defendant can establish, on balance of probabilities, the incident was not attributable to the intoxication. No jurisdiction in Australia imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for dangerous driving causing death or serious harm. This is not unexpected because this offence is one where the level of culpability of the offender can vary considerably. It is therefore entirely appropriate for sentencing courts to retain the discretion to punish according to culpability.
For these reasons, we will not support this bill.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of this bill, being an amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to the creation of a specific offence and the imposition of penalties, and a mandated minimum penalty, for that particular offence.
The amendment simply seeks to insert a new section after section 174FA in Part VI Division 3A Subdivision 2 of the Criminal Code. I thank the Attorney-General for outlining the amendment in her contribution to the debate tonight. I will quickly go through it once again. The offence created is causing death or serious harm through driving while affected by alcohol, and that is an important point. A person is guilty of a crime if they drive a motor vehicle and a crash results from the driver breaching a road rule, and the crash causes death or serious harm to another person, and the driver has a blood alcohol content of 0.15% or more, or fails or refuses to comply with the requirement to submit to a breath analysis or provide a sample of blood.
This amendment refers to the word ‘crash’. Some time ago the traffic accident regime moved away from using the word ‘accident’ in favour of the word ‘crash’. The word ‘accident’ implies there has been some accidental occurrence, where the word ‘crash’ implies something more. It implies there is a greater level of responsibility attributed to the person involved in the incident. For example, if a person backed a car into another at the supermarket car park, that is an accident. The person did not intend to do it; however they still has a degree of culpability. The word was changed from ‘accident’ to ‘crash’ to better reflect the fact there is a degree of culpability in the incident.
In not supporting this bill, members on the other side of the House fail to recognise the increased level of responsibility implied in the change from using ‘accident’ to ‘crash’. One only has to look at the conduct of this government with respect to legislative change in the Northern Territory. Whilst they introduce legislation which is not contentious, anything they bring to this House which is contentious is generally dealt with by way of fluffing around the edges, failing to go to the heart of the matter or the underlying problem or issue they are trying to legislate.
Under this amendment, there is a new offence and a new penalty regime which matches the seriousness of the offence. If I turn to the Sentencing Act Part 2, General Principles section 5 talks about sentencing guidelines. Subsection (1) states:
This new offence deals with a situation where a person drives a motor vehicle; they breach a road rule; they cause serious harm or death; and they have a blood alcohol content exceeding 0.15%.
I want to comment quickly on a matter the Attorney-General raised in her debate a moment ago. She mentioned no direct link between intoxication and the cause of the accident. I would suggest, by the very nature of human physiology and its reaction under the influence of alcohol, particularly at a level of 0.15% or more - and I have seen in my former career many, many people affected by alcohol to the degree of 0.15% or more, and I can assure this House if you are driving a motor vehicle with a high range of blood alcohol content, you are not fully and properly in charge of that motor vehicle. If you breach a law such as speeding, running a red light, going through a stop sign, the likelihood of the level of intoxication affected your judgment to such a degree you broke that road rule is extremely high.
With those levels of alcohol there is a direct correlation between your capability to drive on a road and adhere to the rules of the road. Look at the loss of judgment people have when they drink excess alcohol; look at Mitchell Street, Darwin on a Friday to see what I mean. We are talking about impaired judgment, and that impaired judgment will go towards breaching road rules.
I do not agree with the Attorney-General when she says there should be a link between alcohol and the cause of the accident. I believe that is inferred, and magistrates and judges have the capacity to infer many things in their assessing, judging and sentencing in matters placed before them.
Section 5(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act says:
Section 5(1)(c) of the Sentencing Act says:
That is called specific deterrent and general deterrent. The specific deterrent relates to reoffending if you are sentenced under that regime, because you know if you get caught doing that again you will face that period of imprisonment, or whatever sentence applies to that offence.
The general deterrent, which is also contained within that subsection, is sending a message to people in the Northern Territory who might find themselves in a position where they would drive a motor vehicle when they are exceeding 0.15%. A strong message needs to be sent to people who commit these offences that the penalty is one which reflects the seriousness of the offence. In this case it certainly does. We are talking about imprisonment for 10 years if the crash results in a death, and seven years if it results in serious harm, with a minimum period of 12 months.
Moving through those sentencing guidelines, section 5(1)(d) makes it clear that the community, acting through the court, does not approve of that sort of conduct in which the offender was involved. The imposition of this kind of sentencing regime would send a message to the community that the court does not condone it. Section 5(1)(e) is to protect the Territory community from the offender. A person who drives a motor vehicle at 0.15% or more and then goes out and kills or seriously harms someone as a result of their driving, is a person from whom the community needs protecting.
I move down to section 5(2):,
I do to have to say too much about that. It is obvious the result of a crash which causes serious harm or death does have serious physical, physiological and emotional harm for the victim, and certainly for the family. I note there are other parts of the Sentencing Act which I do not have in front of me, which talk about the impact on victims and, by extension, victims’ families. That is done through victim impacts statements which are presented to court. The provisions of this legislation fit, in my opinion, with the principles of the Sentencing Act.
I believe, on that basis, this is legislation which deserves to be supported and, I imagine, would be supported broadly across the Northern Territory. It is something worth having in place.
I want to talk quickly about section 6A, which are the Aggravating factors under sentencing. Section 6A(d) says the offence was committed without regard to the public safety. Again, this type of offending has no regard for public safety. It is another example of where this legislation is consistent with the principles of the Sentencing Act.
I want to talk about section 174F of the Criminal Code which the Attorney-General referred to, driving motor vehicle causing death or serious harm. Police officers, in my experience, look for and enjoy using legislation which is clear and unambiguous, and which carries with it less interpretation around the finding of guilt for offences. Section 174F of the Criminal Code does talk about driving a motor vehicle causing death or serious harm, however, when it comes to driving a vehicle whilst intoxicated and killing or seriously injuring somebody, that section is a little ambiguous. It leaves open to interpretation the seriousness of the offence, and how it might be dealt with under that section, including a new section put forward to this House today as an addition to the Criminal Code which tightens up those provisions.
It allows for police, in their interpretation of the offence - and certainly judges and magistrates in their interpretation of the circumstances around the offence, whether it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and provide some certainty for them around the sentencing regime which reflects the seriousness of the offence.
Part of this amendment talks specifically about alcohol and a level of alcohol of 0.15% or more, or failing or refusing to submit to a breath analysis or a blood test. Use of alcohol, over-use of alcohol, or alcohol use which contributes to offending in the Northern Territory is often taken as an aggravating circumstance to that offence. Section 7 of the Criminal Code specifically talks about intoxication. I will read part of this section because it is quite relevant to this debate:
(1) In all cases where intoxication may be regarded for the purposes of determining whether a person is guilty or not guilty of an offence:
That goes back to the heart of the amendment to this legislation before the House today. It talks about a person being involved in an accident, causing death or serious harm, and that person being intoxicated. By virtue of section 7 of the Criminal Code, that person must naturally foresee the natural and probable consequences of his conduct were within his grasp.
All this amendment does is create more certainty around the provisions of being involved in a motor vehicle accident where someone is seriously hurt or killed. It does not derogate from other provisions; it does not change other provisions. It simply adds another section, another offence to help police deal with the problem we have of drink-drivers causing accidents and seriously hurting or killing somebody. I do not believe many people in the community would object to having this legislation introduced. Ask survivors of road crashes, or the families of those who have been killed. I have spoken to victims and families of motor vehicle crashes …
Mr Elferink: I have delivered the death messages, as have several other people in this room.
Mr WESTRA Van HOLTHE: Absolutely, and I can assure you probably the single most difficult job a police officer has to do is tell someone their son has been killed in a car accident. It is the people left behind who would want to see this type of legislation brought in and, in many cases, it is not just because they want retribution. They do not want to punish this person. They want to see a regime of legislation which protects other people. The victims, and families of victims, of serious car crashes should be commended because many I have spoken to want just that. They want to change the law because they see there are glaring holes which allow offenders to escape justice. They do not want it for themselves; they want to prevent it from happening to anyone else.
This is a small amendment which adds one small section to the Criminal Code. I do not have a problem with it. I suspect most people in the Northern Territory do not have a problem with it. One thing which must be remembered - and I have reminded this House of this before -this side of the House represents, if you look at the 2008 election and the number of people who polled, just over 50% of the entire electorate of the Northern Territory. We have the support of many good folk in the Northern Territory to bring about legislative change which brings some sense to the carnage we see on our roads, and have seen over many years. I support this legislation - I am disappointed the government does not. I suspect they do not support it simply on the basis of politics. I believe the Northern Territory deserves far better.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. It is commonsense legislation. It is an amendment which is really tweaking the systems in place. It is recognition many of the systems we have are, in fact good. However, they need some amendment. They need some real guts behind them in certain areas.
The Attorney-General has said she will not support it because, on her calculations, only a handful of people have been convicted above the minimum sentence level. One was below the level at 0.075%, or some similar figure. It makes you wonder whether the government has the right data because this bill pertains to those that are 0.150%. Why did the member opposite bother to mention the one that fell under 0.07%? It really confuses me. What the member on the other side failed to do was mention how many people were maimed. It is often forgotten it is not just road deaths; it is those who are maimed or left with serious injuries that need to be considered as well.
That is what this bill does. It sets the benchmark so people understand if you drink and drive and are in a high range - and everyone knows if they are in a high range - you go to a functions upstairs, any function around the Territory - you know you are in a high range situation, you know you have had enough and are pretty well affected. The person who claims: ‘I did not know I was over the limit’, I say lied. That person has taken the role of God into their own hands, gone onto the streets, armed to the hilt with a weapon of 1.5 tonne to 2 tonne-plus. In the Territory we often have four-wheel drives reaching nearly three tonne. They have armed themselves with one of the biggest weapons on our roads and said: ‘To heck with the rest of society, I will drive in a high range and run the risk of killing someone.’ This puts the buck stop in. The benchmark starts with 12 months imprisonment if you kill or maim someone. In most cases, if you have killed someone and are in the high range, you receive a longer term than 12 months; there is nothing to stop that. This sets the benchmark. It sends the message drink-driving is unacceptable.
The member for Braitling has brought into parliament four amendments which deal with drink- driving and repetitive drink-driving, including high range. Those bills are sensible; they are logical. If you drink and drive, armed yourself with one of the biggest bazookas around, thrown it down the highway at anything from 5 km/h through to in excess of 100 km/h, it is a weapon. You are a lethal weapon on the road, and should be treated with the contempt that comes with it. You should be punished for your behaviour.
I will bring some reality to the government so they understand. They do not have the luxury of the experience four members on this side have, having served in frontline policing. Sometimes I think it is definitely not a luxury, it is a burden to carry, the burden I know four members on this side of the parliament will carry for the rest of their life. To go to someone’s door and say: ‘Excuse me, are you so and so?’ By that time, that person - you can see it in their eyes - they know this is one of the worst days of their life.
The reaction is something you do not take home; you get back into the car after delivering the message, after spending time with the person to ensure they do not have a heart attack, or they are incapable of controlling themselves. In Indigenous communities you need to ensure they have not started beating themselves senseless with rocks, or any other traditional response. It is one of the most horrific things you have to deal with. We have many great men and women in our Northern Territory Police Force who do this every day and do not question it.
I know as acting Sergeant from time to time running a shift, when we had to tell someone about the loss of their loved one there was never an argument. No one ever said they were not going to do it. They just quietly did it, because they know if it is not them it will be someone else, and the pain itself will not be as bad as the pain they deliver to the person that night. It is only equalled by the pain of going to an accident, crawling inside a car to see if someone is alive, knowing full well from the visual signs the likelihood of that person being alive is minimal, and knowing you have to help that person if they are alive.
Without going into particular detail, police were called to a location around Palmerston; crews arrived, I arrived on their tail and we were faced with - it was night time, as many of these accidents are. People drink during the day and think they can drive or do whatever they want, whether they are leaving the Humpty Doo pub or anywhere else. My team and I arrived at the location; there were four kids, not one of them reached much higher than my waist, who were alive. It was great; they were alive, and the team looked after these kids on a makeshift hospital on the roadway. There was a lady crying, obviously a little drunk - she was fluffing around. One of my officers ensured that person was not suffering injuries, or was going to wander off and get hurt, or escape.
We then had to see the person in the car, which was in the bush, except that person could not talk to us anymore – that person was dead. She was still strapped into the seat belt, upside down, dead. It took us a while. We had the Police, Fire and Emergency Services there, and we had a couple of ambulances there. The crash crew were there and started dealing with things. It took a while to work out the lady on the road with the kids was not the mother. Mum was in the car. Mum was the lady who did not speak to us anymore.
The lady on the road had only known the family for about eight hours. She had been having a drink at a house in Palmerston and decided to go for a big drive. She was driving; mum jumped in the passenger seat; kids in the back. Mum was dead; four kids were on the road; there is the drink-driver. From there it was up to the court. However, that is real. To tell that person’s partner: ‘Your kids are fine, but your wife is not coming home’ is real. How do you tell the kids mum is not coming out of the car?
If this legislation deters that behaviour it is worth every minute we have spent in this parliament. If this deters that kind of behaviour it is worth it. The government dismisses it because, from the brief search they have conducted on actual deaths, it does not amount to many, and most are above that sentencing. For this to give a greater warning to people that drinking and driving is not acceptable is worth every word spoken in this Chamber; it is worth every hour the member for Braitling has put in.
I believe members opposite are lucky they have not had to do what some members on this side have done. They are lucky because you do not want to ever do it.
Ignore the politics for five seconds and consider: is this going to be a better deterrent? Will this minimise the risk of reoffending by someone considering getting behind the wheel? Some days politics should be put aside and a dose of reality should be taken. This is one of those days, as has been the case with the three strikes policy around drink-driving. Unless you are delivering all those death messages, or having to deal with a drunk driver who wants to run away when they are caught, you have no idea and should, perhaps, listen a bit more - open your ears, your hearts, and your minds to what is a very sensible amendment.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Drysdale and Katherine for their heartfelt, compassionate stories about their days of policing. I understand other members on this side of the Chamber who were previously involved with the police force would also feel the same way.
Since coming to this Chamber, I have put forward a raft of measures regarding road safety, and spoken about road safety at length. This is one such measure, even though it comes under the Criminal Code not the Traffic Act. This measure, as one of the suite of interventions we have put in place regarding road safety, would send a clear message to people they would go to gaol. As mentioned in my second reading speech, it is not my intention to send people to gaol; it is my intention to send a clear message of the punitive approach we are seeking to take so the community changes its attitude to drink-driving.
The member for Karama mentioned no other jurisdiction in Australia takes this approach. I do not think that is a good enough reason. It was only part of her reason. However, I do not believe it is a good enough explanation. It was not about the politics, as the member for Drysdale said. It is about sending a clear message.
Much of the conversation of the current Transport Minister and previous Transport ministers around road safety since about 2005 has been the need for a bipartisan approach. I am at the point of frustration in not having an open hand by government to work together to send out clear messages, particularly drink-driving. We know it is the biggest cause of death and accidents on our roads in the Northern Territory. However, I will take the medicine the government is going to serve us by voting down this legislation.
I do thank my colleagues in the Country Liberals for supporting this bill to introduce a 12 month minimum imprisonment term for those who kill or maim while over 0.15% blood alcohol content.
Madam Speaker, I rest my case. There are other bills before this Chamber tonight which deal with road safety, and we will see where government takes those.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Mr Walker
Motion negatived.
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, the bill does not have the support of government. It imposes a new regulation which is difficult to administer and has, in our view, no real road safety benefit. The member for Braitling has not provided data to show his amendment will reduce the Territory road toll. There is no doubt drink-driving is a problem in the Northern Territory. Over a six year period, from 2003 to 2008, there were 13 756 instances where an offender was sentenced for drink-driving offences. The most common drink-driving offences, totalling 83%, were high range offences at 42%, and mid range offences at 41%.
The Northern Territory also has the highest rate of custodial sentencing in Australia for drink-driving offences at 24%, compared to 5% nationally. Of the persons sentenced, 64% were Indigenous. Approximately 21% of sentenced Indigenous persons had three or more convictions. Further, approximately 53% of offenders convicted of drink-driving offences were also driving without a licence or driving while disqualified. Indigenous people represent 89% of those in prison for committing traffic related offences.
The Traffic Amendment Bill (No 2) 2009 (Serial 69) proposes first time low range drink-driving offenders be placed on a restricted 0% blood alcohol content licence for three months and, if breached, will lose their licence for three months. To do this, the bill proposes section 24 of the Traffic Act applies to a person who has been found guilty of a first low range blood alcohol content offence. Generally, a person is not found guilty of a first low range blood alcohol content offence as police, in most cases, issue an infringement notice, or TIN. The payment of a TIN penalty, generally, does not constitute a finding of guilt for an offence. This issue has not been addressed in the draft bill presented by the member for Braitling.
To clarify, there is some difficulty in imposing a three month restricted licence requiring a 0% blood alcohol content based on payment of a TIN penalty for a first low range offence when that payment does not amount to a finding of guilt.
The member for Braitling’s bill goes on to impose, for breaching the 0% condition on the restricted licence for what is, in effect, a second offence, a mandatory minimum disqualification period of three months. We already have this penalty. This period of disqualification is consistent with the period for a low range offence under our current law. That is, you already lose your licence in the Northern Territory for at least three months if you are found to be driving under the influence twice within three years. Furthermore, under existing legislation, other zero blood alcohol content drivers who commit a second offence under section 24 are subject to an alcohol ignition lock period, in addition to a disqualification period.
Police currently do not notify the Department of Lands and Planning when they issue a traffic infringement notice. The proposed amendments will therefore require administrative changes, including system changes. To enable a restricted licence to be issued, the driver’s full licence will need to be cancelled, and a new restricted licence issued for three months, which in turn will be cancelled, and a further full licence reissued to the driver at the end of the three month zero blood alcohol content period.
The start date of the restricted licence will vary depending on how the offender actions the traffic infringement notice. The offender who pays the traffic infringement notice immediately will be issued a restricted licence and be subject to zero blood alcohol content conditions, whereas a driver who delays payment of their traffic infringement notice, may be able to continue driving for longer without being subject to a zero blood alcohol content limit.
I am highlighting some of the administrative issues associated with the member for Braitling’s bill. It is very difficult to understand what the real benefit from all this additional red tape would be. I point out the current maximum penalty for first time low range drink-driving offenders is five penalty units, or imprisonment for three months. There is also provision for the police to issue a traffic infringement notice for $200 and three demerit points. The current maximum penalty for a second low range offence is 7.5 penalty units, or imprisonment for six months. A second low range offence will result in a minimum three month licence cancellation imposed by the courts.
This government has introduced demerit points and alcohol ignition locks, targeting repeat drink-driving offenders. The current penalties are tough, and the proposed amendments by the member for Braitling represent an expensive, ill-thought out, and complicated system which does not really improve road safety. The member for Braitling advised he proposed to introduce his Traffic Amendment Bill (No 2) 2009 (Serial 69) in the November 2009 sittings in Alice Springs. He did not. He did it in February. The member for Braitling has had ample time to work through the issues which have emerged from the proposed amendments.
The opposition’s bill is costly to deliver, and will have no practical benefit. It appears to be of no real benefit as Northern Territory legislation. No evidence has been presented by the member for Braitling that the proposed approach will impact on the road toll. All it achieves is the introduction of a zero alcohol level document for drivers for three months if they are caught with a low-level blood alcohol content drink-driving infringement. Where is the evidence this amendment will work? We already have the same penalty provision of losing your licence for three months in place for a second low range offence. We are interested in, and deliver, evidence-based policy.
With this in mind, and the fact the current drink-driving penalties allow for substantial fines, alcohol ignition locks, imprisonment and loss of licence, it is clear these amendments will have no impact on drink-driving, but incur a high cost to administer.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the amendments.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I have to say the minister just talking should remain nameless, because what a joke - what an absolute mighty joke he has become! He pulled some figures out - great for doing the research; I appreciate that. He backed up many of the claims the member for Braitling has been putting forward to this House over the last year-and-a-half about drink-driving. It proves there is a need to increase penalties, to continue to hound people who drink-drive, and modify what we currently have as laws. I will keep it short because we have much to go on with.
The minister said: ‘It is all of these hard administrative issues and the red tape’. He is the biggest form of red tape we have in this House because he does not want to do anything that is a little hard. The reality is, it is not hard - not even close to hard. He went on to say: ‘If you do it twice, we will take your licence off you for three months on a second low limit’. That is, essentially, the same administrative cost as has been described by the member for Braitling - pretty much the same. I am not sure whether there would be a major change in cost. Perhaps it is cheaper than the first time. If we prevent one person from re-offending because you put into their head they should not drink and drive, then I believe this is great legislation.
With computers, with the advent of technology spoken about in this House by the ICT minister the other day, it proves we can do things quite easily. When the ticket is issued for a first-time low-level, it goes into the database that night. All tickets to be submitted before end of shift is the current policy within the Northern Territory Police Force. It goes into the Fines Recovery Unit, next day, straight to Motor Vehicle Registry. They type it into their computer – away; it is gone. Yes, he may not end up with a card which says he has a zero rating but, when the police officer does a check, for the next three months it comes up with a warning. Have you ever seen the warnings that come up on the bottom of the IJIS systems? Beep, beep, beep on movers. It shows there is something there - a bit like Pacman. It comes up, and the officer says: ‘You have a zero rating due to drink-driving’. Within a day, that is on the licence; on the database. When that person goes to the pub, has two beers instead of the three he had last night, goes on the road, comes across an RBT - because RBTs are a great tool, they do a great job - he is pinged; he is gone. He thought he could get away with it.
This is another great piece of legislation. It is simple, which may be why the minister has mocked it; it is so simple it might make a difference. His excuse about cost and red tape is a joke, because the very next offence has, essentially, the same outcome. It is a little tougher, however, if it helps in one case - we have heard it all around the world - if it saves one life, it is worth doing. It is such a simple amendment.
Yes, there are some areas where adjustment is needed. We need to modify computer programs. Every morning someone will have to enter this data and then it will be transferred straight to the MVR office – bang, it is in the system. We have many systems like that. The Commissioner of Police, first thing in the morning, receives documents that tell him what happened the night before? There are processes in place. Every morning there is a pile of reports – bang, there it is. ‘There you go, sir, you know what is going on’. The same systems will happen - done, done, done. A couple of clicks on keyboards here, there, and everywhere around the Northern Territory - the job is done. It is not hard.
It is no wonder in the budget you returned over $8m worth of revoted works this year. You do not want to do anything which might amount to work. You failed to deliver then; you continue to fail to deliver for Territorians.
Madam Speaker, this is the second time tonight we have spoken on an amendment which has great common sense. It goes one step towards helping to save Territorians’ lives, and the members opposite come up with the rubbish spoken by the minister.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, in May 2007, the member for Karama introduced the Transport Legislation (Road Safety) Amendment Bill (Serial 98). Part of these provisions was about targeting low-level blood alcohol content, that is, a BAC of 0.05% to 0.08%. She said in her second reading speech:
I listened to the minister, and thanks for your comments. I listened to the member for Drysdale. The minister asked when is the point a crime is committed. My advice is paying the fine imposed by an infringement notice is sufficient to accept guilt, which was contrary to what the minister was saying. The minister also said he had difficulty understanding what benefit this approach will have. This approach is about trying to stop people drink-driving the first time - not waiting. The statistics he and I rolled out showed the high number of people at high range, and repeat high range, the high number at medium range, and the number at low range. There is an escalation of people who start at low range, go to medium, go to high, or go from low to high, because the penalties are too low at the low range. Over a period of time these new measures have been brought in, and the 0.05% to 0.08% offence came in, however the number of people who drink-drive on our roads is too high. To keep the penalty of a first offence at 0.05% as low as it is may deter some people, however, it is not deterring enough people from drink- driving.
I have brought this amendment bill forward because we need change in this area. We do not need to catch people, or put penalties in place when they are high range people, or repeat high range people, or they kill or maim someone; that is not the point. We send out clear messages through tough approaches. We have to reach the 18-year-olds who read 0.07%, or the blokes who have a couple of red wines at dinner, or a couple of beers after work. We have to hit them hard the first time so they do not reoffend. At the moment it is like a slap on the wrist and the message says: it is all right, you are only a little over, it is all right you are 0.07%.
If I was DUI at 0.55% hypothetically, government would be all over me; crucify me through the media. I would resign my job, not like the minister with a speeding ticket at 149 km/h and did not resign. I would resign; I would take a really tough penalty. This legislation is saying suspended for three months on the good behaviour component. That is not tough. That is not like losing your job; it is a message which says you cannot drink and drive full stop. You cannot be 0.01%.
This measure is trying to teach people who are 17, 18, 19, 20 or 21 - do not drink and drive. You have to come down hard on the first offence otherwise they will reoffend. In most cases they go from low to high rather than low, medium, high. That is a significant problem, and while government does not look at its drink-driving legislation we will see more accidents, more people killed on our roads or seriously injured, or injuring other people, or causing trauma to family and society, or public infrastructure will be damaged. A blowout causes concerns for the economy with more insurance claims payable. Whatever happens has negative effects.
As a parliament we have to be tough. I am not going to continue debating this. I am disappointed the government is not keen on supporting a small change to low-level offenders making them more heavily penalised for a first offence. I am really disappointed they are not supportive of that. Not personally disappointed - I am disappointed for the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory expects us to bring reforms to lower drink-driving. Putting more police on the beat to test people is not the answer. We have to get the message out that you should not be drink-driving. Regulate so people are penalised and will not drink and drive. There is no point getting them after the fact. This is the approach with health and education at the moment, and it is the same with drink-driving. It seems completely irresponsible.
This is a very smart, minor piece of legislation which has not been politically bounced around the media. It has been put forward with a view government and the Independents might support it. We do not want people in gaols. We get them the first time, teach them a lesson so they do not go to gaol the second time, because our gaols are full of drunks.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. I ask government members who think drink-driving is a serious issue to support this legislation, and have some real change for the Northern Territory.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, the bill does not have the support of government. The Traffic Amendment Bill No 3 2009 (Serial 70) proposes the current impounding and forfeiture provisions under the Traffic Act be applied to driving unregistered vehicle offences. To achieve this, the bill creates a second class of impounding and forfeiture offence, a Class B offence, dealing with unregistered vehicles, including heavy vehicles. Currently under the Traffic Act, impounding and forfeiture provisions only apply to hooning offences.
In August 2009, the member for Braitling introduced the Traffic Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 38), which proposed to amend the existing impounding and forfeiture provisions within the Traffic Act to incorporate repeat drink-driving offences. He followed that up with this amendment bill, introduced in February 2010.
The Traffic Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 38) has now been withdrawn by the member for Braitling. Yesterday afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition’s office notified my office of additional amendments to the bill before us. For the member for Braitling to put forward amendments with the presumption the other draft bills yet to go through the parliamentary process, for example the now withdrawn Serial 38, will be passed, is a good example of how disorganised the member is.
Mr Elferink: You guys come into this bloody House doing this stuff on the floor.
Mr McCARTHY: It would appear the member for Braitling …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin! I would like you to withdraw that comment thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that he is disorganised, and the other word too.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Port Darwin.
Mr McCARTHY: It appears the member for Braitling has not thought through the amendments he puts before this House. This is typical drafting legislation on the run, and has failed in good legislation for the Northern Territory. He has been saying since August last year - more than eight months ago - that he wanted to debate new CLP legislation, and it still is not ready.
However, tonight’s debate is about the bill before the House. The proposed class B offences for unregistered vehicles will allow impounding and forfeiture where a second and subsequent offence occurs within five years. There is a range of reasons why people drive an unregistered vehicle, including ignorance of the law, financial hardship, language barriers, and personal oversight. The bill targets a very different pattern of driving behaviour than the existing hoon legislation. I acknowledge extending the impounding and forfeiture provisions to unregistered vehicles is one method of removing unregistered vehicles from the road network. However, I am not convinced the proposed amendments will be a cost-effective deterrent. Confiscation of vehicles is costly. It is a very expensive approach to address driver compliance which has very little benefit as a deterrent in relation to unregistered vehicles.
There will, potentially, be significant costs to police and government, and it is possible the value of many impounded vehicles may be such that their owners will fail to collect them from the impoundment. This means police will require impoundment yards across the Territory. Where will they be built? How will they be managed? Towing contractors in the bush are not exactly common so how are police going to get the cars to these yards? In remote areas, police may be the sole provider of storage for vehicles, and their ability to recoup costs on disposal will be very limited.
The object of the opposition’s proposed amendments does not attempt to close the gap for people from remote and Indigenous communities. It is against the law to drive an unregistered vehicle on the road network, and police already have the ability to immediately stop people from driving an unregistered vehicle. Current provisions allow police to issue an infringement notice for $200 where the vehicle has been unregistered for less than one month. If the vehicle has been unregistered for over one month, but less than 12 months, it is a $500 on-the-spot fine. Over 12 months will see a court-imposed sentence with a maximum of 20 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment.
The current penalties in place allow for substantial fines and imprisonment for driving an unregistered vehicle. I believe the member for Braitling’s amendments would be very expensive to implement and administer with minimal impact as a deterrent. The member for Braitling has not provided any evidence to show how this would work. We are interested in, and deliver, evidence-based policy.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the proposed amendments.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, surprise, surprise, the minister does not support the bill. Things have been brought on tonight by the shadow minister regarding alcohol and drink-driving. We have heard the minister talk about fixing the road networks. However, constantly, he says: ‘No, do not support that. Do not support that. We do not support that’. The only thing they support is speed limits. They want to whack in speed limits. They did it 12, 18 months ago, I think - it might be a bit more – a 130 km/h speed limit. The man who praises speed limits was very publicly caught speeding.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I see the Chief Minister and the minister for - goodness me, what are you now, member for Casuarina? - fire hydrants - having a giggle. Yes, I was pulled up speeding. In fact, I have been pulled up speeding so many times in my life, I cannot recall. On my Facebook site, I have said my interests are basketball, politics, pig hunting, goose hunting, and driving very fast. For members on the other side, I am a self-confessed lead foot. However, I am not the person who comes into this House saying: ‘Oh, no, we need 130 km/h speed limits in the Northern Territory’. That is not me. I am not the one advocating 130 km/h speed limits. What I advocate is better roads; the Territory government putting money into roads to make them safer. This government fails constantly in fixing our roads and making them safe.
I remember when I came to the Northern Territory more than two decades ago. I drove up from Queensland, and there was a remarkable difference in roads in Queensland and roads in the Northern Territory. Across the border just outside Camooweal you are on an old dirt track, hit the Northern Territory and all of a sudden you have this beautiful, big, wide two lane highway taking you to Three Ways, then Katherine and Darwin. A magnificent road the whole way! To see the way it has deteriorated in the last few years is terrible. I travel quite regularly. I understand now I will have to report on those trips so members will see how often I travel down the track.
It is a disgrace the way the highway has deteriorated under this government. There are anthills on the side of the road two and three feet high, and when you see something that big you know the road verges have not been cleaned up for quite some time. An ant nest three feet tall does not appear out of nowhere in a short period of time. I understand they can grow quite quickly, a foot or a foot-and-a-half, but they certainly take a while to get to two or three feet tall.
You see grass six feet tall on the sides of the road; it is very difficult to see around bends, and the state of roads themselves – potholes. We saw the Barkly Highway washed out last year because the government would not clean out the culverts and drains; just let the road get washed away. They put it down to a record Wet. If you ring the Bureau of Meteorology, they say: ‘Oh no, these things happen quite regularly’. Oddly enough the Chief Minister says: ‘Oh, freaky acts of nature’. A freak of nature washed the road away that time. Funnily enough, it lasted pretty well for 20 years. Freak of nature strikes, unprecedented Wet, says the Chief Minister. The Bureau of Meteorology would not agree with that at all.
The roads are falling to pieces around us, and the government’s response is to put in speed limits and start raising revenue. When I saw the article in the newspaper about the minister being pulled over for speeding, I felt quite sorry for him, because it is something easily done on that track. It is a big long straight road, there is no one on it, and I can understand how the minister was feeling. I was feeling a similar way myself and succumbed to the desire to put the foot down and motor up to Darwin as quick as I could. It is not the first time I have been caught; I know it is a wrong thing to do. The reality is that those limits should not exist.
They exist for several reasons. One is because Labor governments right around the country, right around the world, are addicted to regulation in any state-style government but, more importantly, they have let the road deteriorate. Even if we had a change of government, it is very difficult to see how we could reintroduce open speed limits immediately, given the level of work needing to be done on our highways to bring them up to where they were more than 10 years ago. The roads were not too bad under the previous conservative government, but they have fallen away badly now.
I am not surprised the minister is not going to support this bill. I cannot see many problems in getting unroadworthy and unregistered cars off the roads. It was something I first noticed when I came to the Northern Territory from Queensland. In Queensland, you register the car once and, providing you kept paying your rego you never had to have a roadworthy check. Consequently, there were many of cars in Queensland that were falling to bits.
I remember my brother had an old Dodge ute which he drove around for many years. It was probably made back in the 1950s or early 1960s, and it literarily snapped in half one day when he was driving down the road. He hit a little bump or something like that. There is no possible way could you get away with that in the Northern Territory. Mind you, we were out bush on the farm, and it was not often driven on the road.
Coming to the Northern Territory was quite a shock for me. I had a cheap car, probably 10 or 15 years old, and I was quite surprised I had to take it in every year for a roadworthy check. I suppose that was one way we, in the Territory, ensure there are cars of a decent standard able to handle those roads.
I cannot understand why the minister would be reluctant to support some of the issues the member for Braitling raises as much of it is very worthy. I believe everyone is keen to see our roads cleaned up; keen to see less carnage on the roads, fewer accidents, less damage to vehicles, and roads treated properly. The government’s constant opposition to these bills seems like pigheadedness. I believe it is a disgrace. I sometimes chuckle at my friend, the member for Braitling’s, desire for bipartisan support on things, and I wonder how you can deal with members opposite because you can never trust them. He talks about bipartisanship, and I think it is an admirable goal.
You would think, by extending the olive branch, his opponent might say: ‘All right, Mr Giles, let us sit down and have a chat about some of these things and see if we can come to an agreement in some areas’. But, no, the minister stands up, proud as he is of the Northern Territory, no way known will he do any deal or negotiation with the opposition which, I believe, is sad.
One of my greatest laments about the Northern Territory is the state of the roads and the way they have deteriorated in the last 10 years. It is an absolute disgrace, and it is a complete symbol of this failed government we have.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim and the minister for their comments. I noted the minister was very keen to castigate me for introducing amendments yesterday. He would know Serial 38, the Transport Amendment Bill, was pulled last week for a new bill, which has been introduced. That bill was removed as a result of negotiation between the Minister for Transport and the member for Nelson relating to forfeiture of vehicles for repeat high range drink-drivers. As a result, Serial 70 relied on much information from Serial 38, and we had to make an amendment to that bill.
It took a long time between Alice Springs and last week to introduce the new bill, Serial 97, because we had to negotiate with the member for Nelson, ensure he was happy with the amendments, ensure we detailed exactly what he wanted, work with Parliamentary Counsel backwards and forwards; that is how it got to that point in time. When we realised the Serial 70 bill relied on Serial 38, we had to quickly make those changes and work with Parliamentary Counsel, and we only did that yesterday. That is when we gave them to government. For the ministers to whinge about getting those amendments earlier, bad luck.
Mr McCarthy: You could have introduced the amendments on the floor of the House.
Mr GILES: The way it works for me, there is myself, I have a secretary in my office, and a few research staff upstairs. The government has 22 000 public servants; 18 500 full-time equivalent public servants. There is an opportunity for those people to do the work and provide advice to the minister. That is how government works. To say he has not had enough time, enough opportunity, is just fairy floss. This is another excuse; another bit of verbal diarrhoea to excuse government not cracking down on road rules in the Northern Territory, whether it is drink-driving, forfeiture of vehicles, unroadworthy and unregistered derelict vehicles cruising all over our streets, past our schools, up and down the highway. It is not good enough our roads are in that condition.
We heard the member for Fong Lim talking about the open speed limit, the condition of the roads, and how feasible it would be to open up the roads on day one, or day 100, or whatever day it is, upon a Country Liberals government coming to power in the Northern Territory. We would not be irresponsible. We would have to check the roads; however the roads are in such poor repair it would take some time before we could open them up holus bolus.
We heard from the member for Fong Lim - and I have spoken about it ad nauseam - about the anthills and the grass six foot high on the edge of the road. They are dangerous conditions.
I spoke about it in the introduction of this bill in February. I said we do not want to be harsh on people and see their cars removed from them. We know in many cases those cars are in a bad condition because of the roads. We know their wheels are falling off and the suspension has gone because they are driving on dodgy roads.
It is a chicken and egg thing, or a catch 22 position; people do not want to have a dodgy car, they have one because the government is not fixing the roads. For public safety requirements, those cars should not be on the roads.
This bill looks to change that. We want to see our roads cleaned up so you do not have cars coming down the street with windscreens missing, exhaust pipes dragging on the ground; a wonky wheel wobbling because it has only has one stud in the wheel. These things are not safe. Surely government cannot support this. What happens when someone is killed? What happens when someone is killed by a car being driven down the highway without brakes, because that is what occurs? You might not see it coming down Mitchell Street every day, but go outside Darwin and you will see it all the time.
I am out in the bush all the time, member for Stuart. I am sure you would see these cars driving around too. You would see them driving from Lajamanu into Katherine, or into Alice Springs, or the back way through Tennant Creek, if you can find that way. You know how bad those roads are, you know how bad the cars are driving on those roads. They are driving around Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs. Darwin or Gove, wherever it is, and they are not safe on the roads. They should not be driven. You are not prepared to invest in the roads.
I note you have not spoken about your roads budget in Budget 2010-11. There is not much in there. There was no flashing media release on the roads budget.
I understand why these cars get to a derelict state. I understand why these cars are on the roads. Government is responsible, in many cases, for these cars being in this condition because they have not repaired the road. They are not suitable to drive a Ford on, they are not suitable to drive a Holden, Falcon or Commodore on – they are not suitable. In my role as a parliamentarian, in my shadow position of Regional Development, Transport and Indigenous Affairs, I go out bush often. It is part of my job to go to communities, talk to people, see what is going on, see if there is any regional development going on in the Territory - which seems to be some sort of oxymoron for this government. That is part of my job.
In my job, I am given a car. The rules will not allow me to have a four-wheel drive. Some might say there is a backhanded reason behind some of this. I am given a sedan to drive. That sedan, as government would well know, is not able to go on these dodgy roads; it would turn into a derelict car and be unroadworthy. That is exactly what would happen …
Mr Knight: Get a plane. I have the answer.
Mr GILES: Maybe I need CLP Air to fly me around.
To undertake my role as Indigenous Affairs and Regional Development spokesperson, I need to go out bush. The Department of the Legislative Assembly will not give me a vehicle that will allow me to go out bush. If I took my sedan it would become a derelict car and be unsafe on the road. I, and any passengers in the car, would be unsafe.
Government has to reach a happy medium where they either fix the roads or get the dodgy cars off the road. They are the ones causing harm to people and emotional and financial distress. People spend their hard-earned cash to buy a family car, put their money into it, drive home once and find their car is literally ruined. We do not want unroadworthy cars on the road, so let us fix the roads. What happens when they have an accident, or they cannot travel on the road at sufficient speed to reach their destination, whether they are on their way to give birth, go to hospital, go to a meeting - whatever.
We see more impact on the health system - people are having accidents because of dodgy roads. We see more impact on the health system because people are driving around in derelict cars. There is a much wider span here. You can take an extreme, right-wing view and say: ‘Get these dodgy cars off the road’, if you can use that expression. However, you have to take the other side of the argument; the roads are so bad and the government will not fix them. We see so much wasted money …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Greatorex! Member for Fong Lim, the member for Braitling has the call.
Mr Tollner: Of course, he does, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr GILES: We see so much money wasted by the Northern Territory government all the time. It is highly prevalent in the budget of 2010-11. Some of that money should be going towards roads on a value-for-money basis to ensure people have open access to and from town, so their cars can be safe, and their families can travel in a safe manner. It is not occurring.
We have the growth town policy, where 20 towns have been selected mainly for political reasons. Those communities need to identify the economic opportunities so they can be future growth towns. Some places have not been selected, for example, Santa Teresa. There is 60 km or 80 km of dirt from the tar to Santa Teresa, as you leave Alice Springs and go past the airport. I am not an economist; I do not know what the economic opportunity for Santa Teresa is. However, one could be for the community to seal the roads so people could drive into Alice Springs every day to work. That would be a simple solution for those people, or they could become involved in agriculture or horticulture. We see people in that community with dodgy derelict cars. People have died on that road in the last few years, whether drunk or otherwise. Do not get me started on the government’s lack of attention to drink-driving!
There are many opportunities for the Northern Territory government to reduce the number of derelict cars on our roads so we do not need to introduce this legislation.
I will sum up by saying since being in parliament I have attempted to bring forward road safety measures, punitive or otherwise, to reduce the road toll in the Northern Territory, to reduce accidents, to reduce the number of people maimed or severely injured on our roads, and reduce the emotional and financial hardship people have, whether caused by themselves or others. It is very important, and something I will continue to do.
If I need to produce tougher road safety reform when the Country Liberals are in government I am prepared to do so.
If the government is not prepared to move on anything it is very sad, and a blight on this government. This is a Labor government, and we know Labor loves regulation and controlling people’s lives. Whether it is a small piece of legislation, the forfeiture law, low range or high range alcohol, minimum sentencing for those who kill or maim, the government has literally gone soft, and is very reluctant to do anything. I find it appalling they would be so reluctant, especially since the Road Safety Task Force and the reforms which came through after 2006, and what did we see, the road toll up, up, up.
Last year was a low year, which was good; zero would be best, we all agree on that. This year we are seeing an increase in the road toll. We need to perform better than we are. Looking at the figures from two years ago, we are the worst in Australia on a per capita basis. Compared to third world countries, we are one of the worst for our road toll.
We have measures being put forward today that the government is reluctant to support, and I find that devastating. I will be interested to see, when we get to item No 15(Serial 97) - forfeiture and impounding of cars for repeat drink-drivers - if that passes through parliament. That bill was negotiated with the Transport Minister and the two Independent members of this Chamber. If government was to renege on that bill, that would be the time for the Country Liberals to stop putting forward reforms on road safety, wait until we win government, put forward strong policies such as these, and implement a road safety reform package which would further build on that introduced in 2006. We seek to reduce the number of road deaths and accidents on our roads we continue to see under this Labor government.
Madam Speaker, I urge members to support the bill. I hope the member for Nelson and the member for Macdonnell support me in this bill. I hope the government has realised the Transport Minister was wrong to voice his concerns on this bill and to state that the government would not be supporting this. I hope he overturns that decision. I commend the bill to the House; this bill goes further on road safety reforms.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 17 February 2010.Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting amendment the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. We all recognise and value the enormous work our police officers do across the Northern Territory in protecting and serving our community. Policing is a very rewarding but very challenging vocation, and it is not a job for everyone. It is a job where police officers do their shift, whether it is a day shift or a night shift, and can never be certain what they are going to confront on any particular day of the week. It is a challenging vocation and our police do a magnificent job by and large, across the Northern Territory.
The Territory’s unique geography, demography and climate create a demanding environment for our police officers and, with all due respect to the police in Tasmania, it is not like being a police officer in Tasmania. The geography of the Northern Territory, the remoteness of many of the postings, the challenges which police face in the Northern Territory are quite different from police forces elsewhere in Australia. Our men and women in the police force serve and protect the community with courage, perseverance and integrity. Our police are valued and respected by the community and supported by this government. We have a very strong track record as a government in supporting our police force.
The Police Services Medal recognises a 10 year meritorious service as a sworn member within the Northern Territory. Section 166A of the Police Administration Act was enacted in October 1983. Section 166A(1) established the police medal would be awarded for 10 years’ continuous meritorious service. Section 166A(2) was enacted to ensure sworn members of the Northern Territory Police who were seconded to other organisations such as the National Crime Authority and the Northern Territory Police Association, would have that service recognised for the purposes of section 166A(1). It was never intended service by sworn members in a police force in another jurisdiction would be recognised in assessing eligibility for the Northern Territory Police Service Medal. Section 166A(2) is anomalous to the extent it can be construed as recognising such service for the purpose of awarding the Northern Territory medal.
In considering the bill before the Assembly, the following facts are salient. No other police jurisdiction in Australia recognises outside service in the eligibility criteria for their respective Police Service Medal. The bill does correct an anomaly in the provisions enacted by the government back in 1983. The Commonwealth government has also announced a national police service medal which will recognise meritorious service across one or more jurisdictions, and we are waiting for the time frame for that bill to be brought to the Commonwealth Parliament.
The Northern Territory Police and the Northern Territory Police Association value the police service medal and, after consultation with the police and the police association, the government is happy to support the bill before the House.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, thank you. As a former serving member of the police force, I know most officers take this bill seriously. They honour and cherish their service. Some leave with many scars; some leave with greater memories and choose to forget the scars. The service medal acknowledges service by those officers, male or female - and I acknowledge we discussed the Women’s Policy statement earlier. Officers serve with great dignity. In the Northern Territory they serve in terrain you do not see anywhere else in Australia, except perhaps Western Australia.
I served in remote Central Australia, in Kintore, as officer in charge of the police station. Certainly, I saw both sides of the border. I acknowledge the people on the Western Australian side at Kiwirrkurra do not really care about the border. The border was nothing for them; it was a place to stop and hunt some bush turkey. There was a wetland area and drew in the bush turkey. These were things you learned when you served in remote police stations. It is certainly not Sydney, Brisbane, and certainly not the Gold Coast.
That is why I support the bill moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It demonstrates it is the Northern Territory police force you have served for 10 years.
I agree there is a definite need for a national police service medal; I believe that is very important. I was a member of the police memorial opening in Canberra as part of the catafalque party representing the Northern Territory. I marched with a great deal of pride as a representative of the Northern Territory. I know other members of the Northern Territory Police Force who marched from old Parliament House felt the same.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, it now being 9 pm, it is time to adjourn the House. You can continue for up to 10 minutes, or you can continue your remarks in the next General Business.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, I will continue for a very short period of time.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, that is fine, up to 9.10 pm.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Do we close this off at the end of that? Whatever is remaining?
Madam SPEAKER: The rules do not really allow us to do that. They allow the person who is on their feet to do that, unfortunately. I will consider it while the member for Drysdale is speaking.
Mr MILLS: I would take about 30 seconds.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. I would recommend the member for Drysdale sat down now, and I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I have been in this Chamber for 11 years; it is good to have something brought into the Chamber. Things I have said on many occasions give me cause for hope that proposals such as this are understood and, at the right time, receive the support of government.
The purpose of this is to reinforce our respect for our hard-working Northern Territory police officers, and I sincerely welcome the support of government on this bill.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time, unaccustomed as I am to getting to this stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the Assembly now stands adjourned.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, tonight I acknowledge and honour the work of around 450 Territory midwives on this special day, the National Day of the Midwife. The worldwide celebration of midwives begun in 1992 as an initiative of the International Confederation of Midwives to celebrate midwifery, and to create awareness of midwife roles in the community.
What an important and vital role these honourable, registered health professionals play in our community, particularly in the Territory where we have a population of younger families compared to other jurisdictions. The role of midwives in the pregnancy and birth process is so very important, and really makes a difference to women and their families during pregnancy, birth, and the postnatal period. Our dedicated and hard-working team of professionals play a huge role in giving new Territorians the best possible start in life, and ensuring the provision of collaborative maternity care for all Territory women.
The Northern Territory Department of Health and Families employs around 450 midwives in the five Northern Territory hospitals, remote health centres, and community-based programs, including the Midwifery Group Practices in Darwin and Alice Springs, and the Home Birth Program.
It is fitting that, in a week’s time, Territorian midwives will be honoured by the 2010 Northern Territory Nursing and Midwifery Excellence Awards. The Northern Territory Nursing and Midwifery Awards recognise the achievements and ongoing hard work of midwives and nurses in the Northern Territory across a range of categories. Early this year, I called for Territorians to nominate their favourite nurses and midwives for this year’s awards. It goes without saying nurses and midwives are absolutely critical in the delivery of health services across the Territory. This year, 27 midwives have been nominated under the Midwifery Section of the awards, which is fantastic. I look forward to announcing the winners next week at a presentation at Parliament House.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, earlier this evening I spoke about road safety reforms in the Northern Territory, particularly in relation to drink-driving, and reforms in the drink-driving area. I spoke about the importance of members of this Chamber taking personal responsibility and following their principles. My belief is people should not drink and drive. People can make a mistake going over 0.05% as they try to balance where their blood alcohol level is in their own person, and things can change depending on how much sleep you have had, how much you have eaten, and all those things which affect a body’s mechanics.
In my resolve to stop people from drink-driving, I have to take responsibility and not drink-drive myself. I said during my speech if I was caught drink-driving that I would resign. It would be quite responsible for me to resign my portfolio. There is no way I could address my portfolio of Transport while I pursued a road safety message. People in voter land who accidentally go over 0.05%, deserve a second chance. Maybe people think if I went over 0.05% I deserve a second chance. However, I believe it is important to uphold those principles and not be a hypocrite.
I want to place that on the Parliamentary Record; when I said I would resign I meant I would resign. I would resign from my portfolio of Transport if I was caught drink-driving. I can say that because I do not drink and drive. I thought it was important to clarify that.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as a regular visitor to this fair city, I have had reason to come in contact with the health system on two occasions. The first one was accompanying a person who engaged with the Department of Health and Families, using private practitioners. Whilst on that journey, I was very impressed at the level of professionalism, respect and care which was offered to the patient I was supporting. The system was easily engaged, responsive, and sensitive, and everything progressed according to plan.
On the weekend I came into contact with the public health system in the case of an emergency, once again supporting a good friend. This was a random sample. I was a visitor to Darwin and I had cause to take this patient to the Royal Darwin Hospital, Accident and Emergency Ward - a random sample - a member of the public arriving at the hospital door with only one objective, to seek assistance from Accident and Emergency. I was very impressed with the service provision and health professionals who engaged in their daily business in offering health support and health service to the public of the Northern Territory.
I will reiterate, and members in this House like to repeat themselves to drive the point home - a random sample. Why I am so proud of the health professionals that represent the Department of Health and Families is this is normal procedure; best practice is normal procedure which happens to all patients who present at the hospital.
I spent most of Sunday and Monday there, leaving late Sunday evening. I witnessed a very complex, a very intense day of health professionals going about their business, including St John Ambulance and the Northern Territory Police. It was wonderful to witness the collaborative nature of professionals working together in the interests of the patients that presented, and there were many; it was a full on exercise all day and into the night until the time I left.
One thing I did observe was patients on Sunday evening - which was a very busy day and staff working very hard - had become abusive. I was there as a member of the public, supporting the person I attended with, and found it very difficult to understand the logic of members of the public that were abusive to staff. However, on the occasions it did happen staff acted in a totally professional manner, in an extremely supportive and sensitive manner, dealt with each individual complaint on a needs basis, and administered the proper care and attention. I really take my hat off to witnessing that in such a difficult environment and one where I was quite shocked. It definitely reflects human nature, it probably represents people in pain and under stress, however it was something I was not comfortable with and not usual for me to understand. These health professionals were working flat out to the best of their ability.
Everything went well in my experience and, of course, with my good friend, who was the patient. That person was discharged late on Monday, and it was an experience I wanted to share with the House. I have heard much comment and debate on our health system in the Northern Territory. There are extreme challenges in that environment. We try to do our best, and everyone works to the best of their ability.
To the staff of Royal Darwin Hospital and Darwin Private Hospital, I put on the public record my vote of thanks, as a person who has come from a regional area, who has sought out medical care for my good friend, and who received the best professional care which could be made available. It was a pleasure to experience such a professional outfit.
I conclude by saying this was not out of the ordinary; this was business as usual. I present at hospitals very infrequently, so it was definitely a very good moment as a parliamentarian, as a Territorian, to witness such high professional standards and such wonderful work.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a combination of things. One is from my electorate base, and the other from one of my portfolio bases, the Art sector.
On 31 March 2010 Exit Art, contemporary youth art of the Northern Territory by Year 12 students of 2009 from around the Northern Territory, opened at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. I was invited to go along, and with great pleasure went. The member for Fannie Bay, Mr Michael Gunner, had a formal role to play, and did a good job; we had a chat.
The stars of the show were not only those on the catwalk, but the students who put their Year 12 projects together, which are now on display in the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. I will skip to the official part; the winner for this year’s Exit Art 2009 Exhibition is Lindsay Bott. She is from Darwin High School, and it is charcoal and paper, and these are self portraits. If you can imagine shining the torch under your face and getting different reflections, that is what she has depicted in charcoal drawings. It is quite a big piece of work. That work will be on display in Parliament House at a later time. Lindsay, congratulations, it is a fantastic piece of work. It is a big piece of work; it is around 2.5 m to 3 m long, and some 600 cm high. It was a beautiful piece of work.
I want to talk about my electorate. Students from Palmerston High School had work at Exit Art, and one which particularly took my eye was from Jessica Beumer. It was titled Mangroves in the Wet. It is a watercolour on paper, and it is 72.5 cm by 91.5 cm; a fairly large piece of artwork. Watercolours, but the detail is fantastic. She said it came from experiences bow hunting with her father in the Australian bush. I must say, not only was it in her pieces on exhibition, but in her portfolio which was in another part of the museum. She has a fantastic grasp of her talent and skills, which were depicted through her portfolio.
Jessica Beumer had two pieces on display of the same size. The second was called Last of the Fires, Beginning of the Wet. It was a fantastic piece. I wish we could write these pictures into Hansard; the reality is we cannot. They were fantastic pieces of work, and I advised Jessica and her parents of this at the gallery. She will do extremely well if she follows art as a career, or a supplementary career.
Jake Spalding of Palmerston High School also had an entry titled Furry Friends (not Forever). It is ink on paper, and is an inspirational piece about his two cats, Midget and Spyder. Unfortunately one went walkabout and did not return, and the one left behind, Midget, always appeared to be sad. He depicted this in his ink on paper piece. It was a fantastic job for a young person to express considerable emotion in his artwork.
Another one which particularly took my eye was a young lady from Palmerston High School called Amy McCaw. Going, Going is the name of her artwork. It is ink on shellac coated board. Essentially, it is ink on vinyl; the vinyl was used as a stamp piece and stamped onto paper. That left four pieces - absolutely beautiful! They were depictions of the plight of the panda. She expressed her feelings that they were going, going, gone. As she applied each ink print onto the next paper the image slowly faded leaving the image of going, going, gone. She also had a stuffed toy panda wrapped with tape saying: ‘danger’. This was not allowed in the exhibition due to excessive sensitivities. I have advised her she can display it in my office any time because I believe it is a very good, in-depth expression of art and she should be allowed to show it.
Three fantastic students from Palmerston High School, and they did a great job.
This exhibition was fantastic. I spent quite some time there and enjoyed the work I saw. I have been lucky to travel to museums around Australia, and I have experienced Indigenous art in Central Australia. And this exhibition rates as highly as the more flamboyant pieces I have seen. I would suggest everyone take a look.
Lauren Burrow of Darwin High School, did a portrait of her father on canvas. It is really an exaggeration of features and is hard to explain other than I thought it was an amazing piece. The colours were beautiful, more reds and yellows than anything else, however it was the way she saw her father in exaggerated features - sometimes a stern character she claims. I think it was a beautiful piece. Do yourself a favour, go and have a look because it was fantastic.
The member for Katherine will talk on one of his students because he came with me today. I took him because the works were that fantastic.
Breanna Harwood from Tennant Creek High School did a glass platter. It was fused in slumped glass; another beautiful piece. You see all the knick knack shops around Darwin; this is an example of students creating their own work. If that person could create a Territory flag for me I would be rapt. It is beautiful.
Alexandra Henggeler from Kormilda College painted an orange lilium oil on canvas. Oil is not used much today. It was a beautiful floral piece and quite large - over 1 m by 0.7 m. Just beautiful!
Charlee Horni, Darwin High School, depiction of Growing Pains - paint on canvas. It was growing pains of age. The last one is John Jamieson of Darwin High School, Natural Euphoria, a pictorial pieces on canvas. It is of youth exploring the boundaries of life without any form of artificial stimulation. This was natural euphoria. They were jumping off things and exploring nature at its best. Some thinking went into that. It is a photographic piece. Natural Euphoria is a perfect example you do not have to take illicit drugs to have a great time.
Get into the Museum and Art Gallery; it is open until 11 July 2010. The Museum and Art Gallery is free and this exhibition is worth seeing; it is as good as any other around Australia.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we have witnessed an occasion I am very pleased to see in parliament; the Police Administration (Service Medal) Amendment Bill 2009 proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and, on a rare occasion in this House, supported by the government. Although this is not a major bill compared to some legislation passed through this House, it is an important bill to members of the police force.
Support by government of an opposition bill is something I hope will occur more often in this House. Unfortunately, the system of government we operate under tends to work against this process. Party-political affiliations can also rise to the forefront. In this case, both parties recognised the importance of our police force and the work they do in our community.
I may live in utopia when it comes to parliamentary operation, however I hope more issues can be resolved through cooperation, dialogue, and a freedom from party-political constraints. We tell people outside this House to work together peacefully to solve their problems, yet when they come to this House they wonder if we really mean what we say because, at times, it seems we do not believe what we say.
There have been some tumultuous times in this House over the last seven or eight months. Some people agree and some disagree on decisions I made late last year. However, if one good thing comes out of that - and it is something I will continue to promote - I believe we should work together more. We are a small jurisdiction of 214 000 people; we have 25 members with some of the smallest electorates in Australia. On some issues the differences might be large, however, on many issues they are quite small.
The history of the major parties throughout Australia shows they have come closer to the centre in their philosophies and ideologies than when I was a young man growing up in the days of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party. There were clear distinctions between those groups.
I do not believe because we follow the Westminster system and it is a tradition to uphold from the 1600s, we should all stay the same. We evolved. What happened in the 1600s? They burnt witches, they beheaded or hung heretics. They did many things which we do not carry on as traditions. This table in front of us has us two swords apart. Have you seen members with a sword and scabbard? No, we have not. I do not believe there is anything wrong in questioning the system of government we have; it is not treason. In 1600 if I had said it, I might have been duly despatched.
Our community expects us, as politicians, to work cooperatively. We should do that as often as we can, yet we are tied to a system which is about aggression. To oppose another point of view we tend to show aggression. We might, at times, twist the truth - we have to highlight the negatives so that is what people hear about.
I tell many people to read the paper and see the SMS or text messages, most of which is whinging. People might have some complaints, however at times we forget how lucky we are in this country. We have a great country. In the Northern Territory we have the best part of the country, yet sometimes we drown ourselves in issues, in worrying about problems, and are not grateful for the great place we live in.
There needs to be more cooperation as seen today. People in the Northern Territory expect us to work together. The reason we are here is to help people of the Northern Territory improve their living standards, their lifestyle, and make it a better place for everyone to live. The Chief Minister agreeing to an opposition bill may be a small thing, however, there is that famous statement: from little things big things grow. The Territory might lead the way as a parliament of consensus rather than a parliament of opposition. That would be a far better place for us to work. We would get more done and, in many ways, bring the community along with us. They know that, as a group, we are working for the benefit of everyone in the Northern Territory.
I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for introducing the bill, and the Chief Minister for supporting it. I say well done, and let us see more in the future.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I respond to comments made by the member for Nelson. He lives, in so many ways, in another world. He believes the different sides of politics, the different political parties, should get together and agree on everything. I do not. It is nave in the extreme to make such a suggestion in any state or territory parliament or the federal parliament.
I suspect it is a somewhat different story in local government, however, at this level of government, there are two political parties for very sound reasons. We do disagree on many things - like it or not, that is the reality.
That seems to provide to the member for Nelson a level of discomfort. I do not know what motivated the member for Nelson to get involved in politics. All politicians in this House share a commitment to making a difference and making a contribution. That does not mean you would expect politicians from different political parties, with different political philosophies and beliefs, to agree on everything.
It is very convenient for the member for Nelson, who attached himself to this rotten, rancid government to say let us get together and have a chat. He is in a position to demand everyone see things the way he does, and every issue can be resolved by sitting down and talking about it. I say that is nave in the extreme. Robust debate is a good thing, and the foundation of our democracy and parliamentary system. Why the member for Nelson is so discomforted by that, I do not know. He seems to have a quaint view about modern day politics; people should discard their fundamental political, deeply held and different beliefs, and get together and have a chat.
That does not represent modern day politics; it does not represent the Territory parliament. The fact he is holding the Labor government to ransom is disgraceful. We have a Chief Minister who can barely govern; he governs with one hand tied behind his back; he is beholden to the member for Nelson, who is beholden to the Chief Minister. It is a very unattractive, mutual relationship. No wonder so many Australians are laughing at the Northern Territory. Yet, the member for Nelson thinks everyone needs to get together and have a chat. I say again, it is nave in the extreme.
The member for Nelson had an opportunity to ensure the Northern Territory went to election. He did not want that. The member for Nelson had an opportunity to be a government minister, a minister of the Crown, part of a Cabinet, and to make a difference. However, through, what I believe to be sheer cowardice, the member for Nelson elected not to take up that opportunity.
We now have a situation where, when the government does some good things - and on occasions this government does - he says how happy he is with that decision. When he is not happy with the government decision he has a go. The member for Nelson has a foot in both camps. He should have made a firm decision to go with the party of his choice, to be a member of Cabinet, a member of government. He declined, and he declined to go to an election. Yet, he has the audacity to sit on the sidelines and say: ‘Notwithstanding deeply held and fundamental views, political views by both parties, they should all get together and have a chat’. That might be the member for Nelson’s position; it is certainly a very quaint view of modern day politics not shared by me.
It is noteworthy that government has agreed to legislation brought into the parliament by the opposition. It is not the first time the government has agreed with the opposition. The opposition often agrees with government. On occasion - too regularly it would seem for the pious member for Nelson - we have robust debate because there are different sides of politics representing differently held views and positions on a range of issues.
I could not resist the opportunity to comment, in the dismissive way I have, on the comments made by the member for Nelson. People in my electorate, and those outside my electorate with whom I speak, say if he wants everyone to get into a room and have a chat he should go back to local government.
Occasionally there are issues equally robustly debated in the local government arena. However, in a state, territory or federal parliament, to suggest everyone should agree on everything is nave in the extreme, and insulting to the deeply held and different political beliefs people on both sides of parliament have. With those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of staff from the Department of Justice. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Leader of Opposition’s Response
to Budget 2010-11
Leader of Opposition’s Response
to Budget 2010-11
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that at 11 am, during government business, I will call on the Leader of the Opposition to deliver the opposition’s response to the budget. The member speaking at the time will be asked to continue their remarks at a later hour.
REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 102)
(Serial 102)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The bill puts in place a package of measures announced as part of Budget 2001-11 by proposing amendments to the Stamp Duty Act, Taxation Administration Act, First Home Owner Grant Act, Mineral Royalty Act and Victims of Crime Assistance Act.
Most of the key proposals in the bill focus on the government’s commitment to a balanced housing market across all market segments. This is a priority in the Territory 2030 strategic plan. In keeping with this priority, the bill proposes to improve housing affordability in the Territory by increasing the stamp duty First Home Owner Concession, increasing the Principal Place of Residence Rebate, and introducing a stamp duty concession for senior citizens, veterans, pensioners, and carers. To further assist homebuyers, the government proposes to again increase the stamp duty First Home Owner Concession, and Principal Place of Residence Rebate.
Members will recall that, since coming into office, the government has reformed and introduced a range of stamp duty-related home ownership concession schemes, including the First Home Owner Concession, and the Principal Place of Residence Rebate. The government has consistently reviewed and increased these concessions to ensure they suit the Territory’s housing market.
In keeping with this, the first homeowner concession will increase from the first $385 000 of a property’s value to the first $540 000 of a property’s value. This will result in the maximum concession for first homebuyers being $26 730, which is an increase of about 70%, or over $11 000. Increasing the first homeowner concession will ensure the stamp duty will not impede home ownership for most first homebuyers. Furthermore, setting the concession at the first $540 000 of a property’s value will ensure the cost of stamp duty does not lock first homebuyers out of the housing market.
The Principal Place of Residence Rebate will also be increased by 40%, from a maximum of $2500 to a maximum of $3500. This will assist other Territorians buying a home which is to be used as their principal place of residence. This means these homebuyers will pay no stamp duty on approximately the first $143 330 of their home’s value. This is a significant increase from the previous $111 850.
In keeping with another action in the Territory 2030 strategic plan to provide financial relief to retirees moving into retirement accommodation, the government also proposes to introduce a new stamp duty home ownership concession of $8500 for senior citizens, pensioners, veterans and carers. The new concession recognises the valuable contribution seniors and carers have made, and will continue to make, to the Territory. It also promotes the Territory as a place for seniors to retire, and assists them in transitioning from a larger family home to more suitable accommodation. This may assist in increasing the supply of established family homes to contribute to housing affordability. Homebuyers will be eligible for this new concession if they are at least 60 years of age, or hold a Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Card. Other eligibility criteria will be similar to those existing for the Territory’s other stamp duty home ownership concessions.
It is proposed these changes apply to instruments executed on or after 4 May 2010. Purchases secured prior to that date, either by contract or option, will not be eligible for the new or increased concessions. It is expected homebuyers in the Territory will save $5.4m in 2010-11 from the increase to the First Home Owner Concession and Principal Place of Residence Rebate, and from the new Senior, Pensioner and Carer Concession.
As part of the government’s push to promote home ownership among Aboriginal people, the bill also extends the First Home Owner Grant and the stamp duty home ownership incentive schemes to eligible Aboriginal people who acquire land, or homes, pursuant to long-term leases granted under the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. This proposal will also commence from 1 May 2010, and supports measures designed to address the large disparity in home ownership rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians.
The bill also seeks to introduce a stamp duty exemption for the establishment of, and the transfer of, property to a special disability trust where no consideration is provided. Special disability trusts were introduced by the Commonwealth to assist relatives of disabled persons to engage in succession planning for the benefit of the disabled person. This assistance is provided through concessional means testing and tax treatment to assets held in such trusts. The proposed exemption seeks to encourage the use of these trusts from 1 July 2010.
The bill also seeks to address a restriction of the stamp duty homeowner concessions concerning persons who are building a home. Currently, a home must be occupied within the earlier of 12 months of a home being built, or three years from the date the land is purchased. The bill proposes the maximum three year time in which to build be increased to five years, starting from when the person becomes entitled to possession of the vacant land.
For persons purchasing a home off the plan, the three year time frame to build will be removed. However, there will be a requirement to occupy the home within 12 months from when the conveyee becomes entitled to possession of it. Although this change will commence from 1 July 2010, the extended five year period will be available to people who have missed out on a stamp duty concession because of the current requirement to have a home built within three years.
I now turn to another key measure of the bill. The bill proposes to increase the mineral royalty rate from 18% to 20% of the nett value of a mine’s production. This change in the rate, which is the first since the Mineral Royalty Act commenced in 1982, is effective from 1 July 2010. The new rate gives an increased community return from non-renewable resources that are owned by the Territory. The rate increase will strengthen the contribution of the mining industry to the long-term welfare of the Territory and our community.
This follows similar recent royalty increases in New South Wales and Queensland to increase their return from coal mining in those states. However, importantly, unlike other states which predominately use output-based royalty schemes, the Territory imposes royalty on a mine’s profitability. This means Territory mines only contribute royalty when they are able to derive a profit. At a royalty rate of 20%, this contribution is still considered to be a fair share of profits derived from the Territory’s minerals.
Although it is difficult to compare output-based royalties with profit-based royalties on a year to year basis, on a long-term or life-of-mine basis, the new 20% rate compares to the mid-range of the output royalty rates imposed in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia, being the main mineral producing Australian states. In this regard, this increase is not expected to disadvantage the Territory in being considered for future resource projects. This measure is expected to increase revenue by about $9.2m in 2010-11. This is because the first six-monthly payment received in 2010-11 relates to the period of 1 January to 30 June 2010, when the rate of 18% applies. The increased revenue is expected to be $14.8m in 2011-12, reflecting the full year effect on revenue. These numbers are based on miner’s estimates, where possible, of commodity prices and mining production, as well as global demand for commodities, and the value of the Australian dollar. In recent times, these factors have been shown to have a highly variable impact on a mine’s profitability and the royalty it pays to the Territory.
This bill also proposes several measures to strengthen the integrity of the Territory’s stamp duty legislation. This will reduce the risk of the legislation being exploited, and the payment of stamp duty avoided. Unless otherwise indicated, it is proposed these measures commence from 4 May 2010.
The first measure seeks to clarify that stamp duty remains payable on the grant of a lease where valuable consideration, in addition to rent, is provided. This measure addresses an avoidance scheme which is the subject of a Supreme Court of New South Wales decision. The court decided consideration given for an option to grant a lease was technically not dutiable. Second, the bill introduces changes to landholder stamp duty so the concept of an acquisition includes an interest acquired as part of an arrangement for the provision of finance. However, there will be no duty on the acquisition if the commissioner is satisfied the acquisition is solely for financing purposes.
The proposed amendment will require duty to be paid unless the interest is returned to the person who is obtaining the finance, or otherwise disposed of pursuant to a mortgagee’s power of sale within five years. A longer period may be approved by the commissioner. The measure is based on similar provisions in New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT and Tasmania. This closes an opportunity to mask otherwise taxable acquisitions as financing arrangements to avoid the payment of duty.
The last of these integrity measures seeks to clearly set out when an interest in a landholding corporation is acquired and ensure the timing of an acquisition cannot be deferred to avoid stamp duty. It is proposed the time when an interest will be taken to be acquired be the earlier of:
the date the transfer documents are delivered to the person acquiring the interest;
I now turn to a number of other measures in the bill which also commence on 1 July 2010. These measures are aimed at making the Territory stamp duty legislation more efficient. The Commissioner of Territory Revenue can currently create and assess duty on a memorandum where taxpayers fail to lodge a dutiable instrument for assessment. The bill seeks to clarify that a memorandum can also be created where it is impossible or impractical for an instrument to be lodged for a reassessment. This measure also clarifies the circumstances when a memorandum may be created in relation to the registration of a motor vehicle.
The bill also proposes to broaden the concept of a family trust for the purposes of the substituted purchaser concession by allowing a family trust to have a family company as a beneficiary. The substituted purchaser provisions were introduced in 2009, and allow a purchaser to nominate a related person, prior to settlement, to receive the property being purchased without double stamp duty consequences. This is provided a sub-sale of the property has not occurred.
The last of these efficiency measures ensures where land is granted by the Territory, stamp duty can be assessed on the value of the land when all or part of the monetary consideration that passes is unascertained at the time of the grant. This measure is in response to profit sharing arrangements involving the grant of Crown land.
The bill also proposes two minor amendments to the Taxation Administration Act. The bill clarifies that despite their repeal, the former payroll tax and stamp duty legislation, as well as the former taxation administration legislation, continue to be taxation laws under the Taxation Administration Act. The bill also ensures that the Commissioner can allocate payments from taxpayers in the order of interest, penalty tax and primary tax.
The bill also amends the Victims of Crime Assistance Act. The purpose of this is to amend section 61(6) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act so that the levy on infringement notices is increased from $10 to $20. The victims levy is collected to offset the cost of delivering financial assistance to victims of crime in the Northern Territory. This levy has been in place since 1990 under repealed crimes (victims assistance) act, and was last increased in November of 2002. The victims levy is paid into the victims’ assistance fund established under section 60 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act. Of the two sources of funding for the victims levy, infringement notices and court imposed levies for offences, the increase only relates to the levy on infringement notices, for example, red light cameras, mobile cameras, speeding and other traffic offences and their enforcement. Currently, the levy is $10 for each infringement notice or enforcement order.
The proposed amendment of section 61(6) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act will increase that levy from $10 to $20. This increase is to take effect from 1 July 2010 in relation to offences committed on or after that date. The increase is to ensure a clearly defined funding base to manage the ongoing costs of financial and other assistance to victims of crime. A review of the first three years of operation of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act is due to be conducted this year.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Terms of Reference for Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Terms of Reference for Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee 2010-11, and a Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee 2010-11, pursuant to the terms circulated to members.
Since coming to government in 2001, we have instituted an Estimates Committee. There was no Estimates Committee in this parliament prior to that. As I understand it, it was the only arrangement in Australia existing at that time. This government certainly wanted openness and transparency in government, where ministers would appear before an Estimates Committee, and where public servants could be questioned on outputs within the appropriation budget. This is a very important process and as a minister I look forward to it. It is an opportunity to really dig down into the financial and operational issues around the departments, and also engage with the opposition and have a dialogue in outputs, in what is being achieved, in what the opposition may suggest, what is not being achieved, and where things can be improved.
I value the input from the member for Nelson. I believe he has been a very strong contributor within the estimates process. He has asked some very practical and commonsense questions which, in some cases, are quite challenging, however they really add to the estimates process. I welcome the estimates process.
There are some changes in estimates this year, and they have been flagged in the Terms of Reference circulated to members. What we are debating here is essentially a procedural motion; a very important motion.
Some of the changes are around the sitting times. A total of 50 hours has been allocated to estimates this year. That is up from approximately 45 hours the previous year. To accommodate that, there are some changes which are being considered by the Estimates Committee in timing, and the timetable for ministers to appear before the Estimates Committee.
In the past we would precede estimates with a three day sitting week, followed by a four day sitting week, being estimates itself, starting on Tuesday and continuing through to Friday. This year we will have three days of sittings followed by an estimates day on the Friday. We will go from Monday of the second week through to the Friday, where the government owned corporations - Power and Water - will give evidence. We will then move back into parliament.
There are some rules, which have been agreed within the Standing Orders Committee, regarding the maximum time ministers can be examined, being seven hours. That has been negotiated, and I understand the Estimates Committee will be meeting today to finalise arrangements which will be published for members and ministers. Everyone can start work with some certainty around when they will be appearing, and the length of questioning for each portfolio area.
There are changes. It has been an issue continually raised by the opposition - there is never enough time in estimates. I can understand, from an opposition’s point of view, why they might say that, however there are changes. There has been an increase in time, and it is up to everyone to use their time wisely. In that vein, there have been changes regarding questioning, and the method of questioning ministers. I will quote from No 23 of the Terms of Reference so everyone will be clear on it:
An initial question should be directed to the minister (or Speaker) in the first instance and then officers of the relevant departments may provide assistance to the minister (or Speaker) in providing information. Ministers (or Speaker) may defer to the Chief Executive Officer (who may defer to another officer) who may then be directly questioned on subsequent questions on the same subject.
There are some issues around the appropriateness of questions. Questions may be ruled by the Chair as not appropriate for an officer to answer, whereupon a minister, or Speaker, may choose to provide information or take such matters on notice. Then, No 24 of the Terms of Reference:
- Officers may answer questions at the request of the minister (or Speaker) but shall not be required to comment on policy matters, including giving an opinion, and the minister (or Speaker) or CEO may at any time intervene and answer questions that are asked of departmental officers.
No 25 goes to Standing Orders 112, 113 and 114, which govern questions that are in order, or out of order - whichever way you want to look at it.
I believe we have made positive changes this year. I commend this motion to the House. We are going to embark on further change in estimates. This government, as I said, instituted an Estimates Committee, and we welcome the scrutiny of estimates.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this is a procedural motion and, yet, the Leader of Government Business cannot but engage in a little politics at the outset.
The history which is rewritten in this House is an amazing thing - that there was no Estimates Committee prior to the change of government. In fact, prior to the change in government, the Northern Territory was a cold miserable place; the air was dank, hung low over a wretched community which was suffering under the yoke of this evil Stalinist empire - the Country Liberals’ government. Then there was change. There was an election and there were rainbows in the sky, and trees with little robins in them singing sweetly as sunshine glowed warmly upon the people of the Northern Territory. What a pack of arrant nonsense!
There was an estimates process. The Appropriation bills, in those days, came before this House. Guess what? There were no time limits on speaking to ministers. Those ministers could be questioned to exhaustion; until the opposition had run out of questions. The government claimed last week the questions had to be submitted so answers could be given and then, any number of other questions could be followed up with – which were.
How often did we find ourselves in this House, under the old estimates process, until 2 am or 3 am because fulsome answers were given to an inquisitorial opposition examining the quality of the budget? That is the standard rewrite of history we have become so familiar with in this House.
This government talks about openness, honesty, and accountability; they say they are absolutely committed. Well, I agree - they should be committed. The fact is, since they have introduced their estimates process, there has not been questioning to exhaustion. Even through this process there will not be questioning to exhaustion. It is an improvement because there is an extension of time as to how long particular ministers can be cross-examined, if you like, in relation to what they are going to do with $5bn of Territorians’ money. However, it is still not question to exhaustion.
What they are replacing, for the public’s edification and knowledge, is a system by which the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, the officer-in-charge of spending the $5bn, up until now who had multiple portfolio areas, including the Attorney-General’s portfolio, was exposed to cross-examination for four hours, exactly the same time as the Sport minister was exposed to cross-examination.
Ms Lawrie: No, I go longer than four as Treasurer. I had seven hours. I had seven hours.
Mr ELFERINK: This motion changes that. If you would listen - listen.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Mr ELFERINK: You just got it wrong.
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not.
Mr ELFERINK: The cross-examination of the Chief Minister, the Attorney-General, the Treasurer, is now going to be longer than it has ever been. That is an important advance, but it is not a return to the days where questions were asked to the exhaustion of all questions, which meant by the time the shadow ministers in the old days sat down, they had asked every question they wanted to. I suspect, even under the new arrangements, that will not be achieved. I will say, however, the new arrangements are an improvement on the old ones. To that end, we will support the new arrangements.
However, to come into this House on a procedural motion, and attempt to rewrite the history of the Northern Territory, like they always do - they are so close to the fringe of dishonesty when they do that - is something which will visit them in the future. Territorians will wise up to this consistent rewriting of history, this consistent fudging the facts, and when they do I expect they will become wholly and solely sick of it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is interesting hearing a debate over an Estimates Committee motion, and I believe it is worth some response. I welcome the increase in the number of sitting hours. As mentioned previously, I prefer the extra three days added on to parliamentary sittings be added to estimates, because I believe this is one of the most important parts of the parliamentary process. It gives us an opportunity to investigate all departments on their policies in relation to the budget put forward by the Chief Minister yesterday, and responded to by the Opposition Leader today. I welcome the increase in hours.
I also welcome an opportunity to look at weighting portfolios. I know there are discussions with the opposition in relation to ensuring we have time to cover the portfolios of each minister. One of the concerns in previous sittings was some ministers may only have some of their portfolios questioned, leaving just as important portfolios, for instance, the port or tourism, for a number of years without being investigated. The changes we are looking at this year may go some way towards fixing that problem.
I heard what the member for Port Darwin said regarding whether there is enough time to question the government, and I know there have been discussions on extending the hours next year. This year there were some difficulties, especially around how the timing fitted in with the school holidays and public holidays. I believe there needs to be a review of how the parliamentary sittings fit with those times, and how the Estimates Committee would fit into those times. Hopefully this year things will change.
However the opposition, in analysing its performance last year, said it did not perform well. One area which has to be improved is ensuring questions are precise, just as we ask government to be precise and relevant, so there are no repetitive questions, and we use the time as efficiently as we ask the government to in answering questions. When it comes to use of hours, members on both sides need to improve the quality of both questions and answers. This is part of the evolving process of the Estimates Committee.
I was one of the original people on the Estimates Committee who visited Tasmania to look at their estimates process. I believe we have been able to develop ours more and more to suit the Northern Territory; and I believe people take an interest in estimates if we ask questions relevant to our constituents. We have to ensure, when we ask questions, they are the type of questions people want to hear answered.
Whilst it is good to be getting to the theoretical and philosophical, which are important, people want to know where their taxpayers’ money is being spent. If money is being allocated to vast projects such as the Tiger Brennan flyover, I am sure people want to know that money is being spent wisely. If it is over budget, they want to know why it is over budget; if it is underspent, they want to know why it is underspent; if something in last year’s budget has not been used this year, they want to know why it has not been allocated this year. The general public wants to know how their money is being spent, and the Estimates Committee gives members on this side an opportunity to extract that information in a public forum.
The Estimates Committee is open to the public, and we should emphasise that and encourage people to come to listen to what is being said. We need to advertise exactly when the Estimates Committee is sitting, who is speaking, what departments are appearing, and encourage people to come along to hear what ministers have to say about their portfolios.
I support the changes. I also support the concept of more direct questioning of the CEOs. I realise the need to recognise the minister is the boss of the department; however we need to recognise the Chair has an important role in our committees. The Chair should be able to adjudicate, at times, as to whether questions are appropriate to the CEO; that is they deal with matters of fact, rather than policy. I believe the role of the Chair should be recognised in our Estimates Committee as an important part of the process.
I certainly welcome the extra times. There is a PAC meeting at lunchtime, which will discuss the times and dates ministers will appear. That will be a relief for many ministers and departments; at least they will know where to aim because, as we know, there is much back room work in departments getting ready for the Estimates Committee. In fact, I was talking to someone today who said: ‘Whenever the day is our minister speaks, we have to sit on the phones all day to ensure we are ready to answer any questions that come through.’ There is not only work for the ministers. This puts a great deal of work on public servants; and we should recognise that work. That is part of the process of opening up government and, if government says it is open and transparent, the Estimates Committee is one way to show whether it is following its philosophy of being open and transparent.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I sit here at times and laugh and giggle when I hear the government talking about openness and accountability. What a joke; what an absolute joke! I have sat through one estimates process; I am a member of the PAC, and it is more about keeping information from the public than giving it to the public.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I hear what the member for Nelson had to say about the Chair having an important role, and there is no doubt about it: the Chair does have an important role. However, it should never be forgotten that the Chair of this committee is a partisan person; a person from the Labor Party who wants to ensure his comrades do not walk out of it looking too bad.
We see ministers facing the Estimates Committee who constantly waffle; no matter how much you try to shut them up and say: ‘We have done with that question, let us ask something else’, we see a Chair step in and say: ‘Hang on, hang on, let them answer’. You quickly find the few hours you have to discuss a particular issue or output group dissolves to a matter of minutes. In opposition, when you go in to ask questions, you are armed with a plethora of different questions to hit a minister with on a particular subject, and you quickly find your time has dissolved into nothing. You do the best you can, ask a couple of key questions, watch the minister rattle on infinitum and do everything they possibly can to retain information rather than provide information.
To suggest this government is open and accountable is completely wrong. It is stupid if people think that is what they are trying to do. This government is not interested in people knowing what they are doing. They are shrouded in secrecy, and doing everything they possibly can to keep information from the public.
To come into this House and suggest they have done us a great favour by extending the hours - I believe is great by the way, I agree with it, however, as the member for Port Darwin explained, this is not the way things always work. It is like the world only started 10 years ago - before that there was nothingness. We had corrupt governments who did nothing; nothing changed until we had this new government of Labor comrades who fixed everything. They have done it all.
I do not buy that for a second, and their rewriting of history is absolutely shameful. To come into this House and suggest there was no estimates process before they came to government is complete nonsense, absolute nonsense, absolute arrant nonsense. People should not believe that sort of talk because the fact is, as the member for Port Darwin explained, ministers could be questioned to exhaustion. They had to answer questions; eventually they had to answer questions.
The member for Karama may well have found herself standing for several hours answering questions under the old system. Now she comes with that dull, boring, monotone, nasal voice, rattles on for hours and hours and hours with meaningless rot and dribble, and the opposition has to listen to the mindless dribble which comes from the mouth of the member for Karama …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … and she is not alone.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: We are often told, on this side of the House, none of us have any experience as ministers. None on the other side have any experience in opposition. None of them have done an apprenticeship in the wilderness. None of them have had to sit there and …
Ms Lawrie: Not true, not true!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … question, in some cases what we have these days, brain dead ministers, who know nothing about their portfolios but do know how to talk under water and waffle nonsense …
Ms Lawrie: He is misleading parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: ... endlessly. It is pathetic, and it is wrong to suggest this government is open, accountable and transparent.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: What a load of nonsense. I note I have been speaking now for about 10 minutes, constant interjections …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … no reflection on the Chair, but to suggest we have independent chairs on estimates is completely wrong. The fact is chairs in this House are partisan …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: … they belong to a party, they are there to support their comrades, and they do that well.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Government members!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution, particularly the member for Nelson. I thought he gave a fairly even-handed and practical oversight of the estimates process. I agree with much of what he had to say, particularly his point about the amount of preparation public servants do to get to the estimates process. I know, often, there is disappointment when there is not enough time for their particular area to be scrutinised. One area might be the Darwin Port Corporation. I do not believe the Darwin Port Corporation - I may stand corrected here - has been scrutinised once in the whole time I have been a minister. It is a very important part of our operation. I am certain this year, given the changes, the Darwin Port Corporation will be scrutinised, and that is quite appropriate. There is much preparation for those working in the departments, and that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Dr BURNS: I can tell the House that preparation actually starts towards to the end of the calendar year preceding estimates. As minister, I always have a conversation with the department at that time, and start preparing for estimates. It is a long-term process to prepare for estimates. That is very important.
The members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim lauded the process that occurred previously, when a Committee of the Whole, as I understand it, would inquire into the estimates process. Indeed, the member for Fong Lim forgets the Chief Minister has been in opposition; you were wrong about that. It is not always a good idea to generalise like that, member for Fong Lim.
As I understand it, under the Committee of the Whole system, questions had to be submitted well in advance, in writing, and the dialogue - I may stand corrected from the one member who was here as an opposition member - they were not allowed to digress too much from those written questions. Whereas, what we have now is more of a conversation in the interaction between the opposition, Independents, the public servants, and the minister. There is much more freedom to ask questions, and take a particular line of questioning.
Moreover, the member for Port Darwin conveniently did not mention that, under the old system, it was here in parliament. He mentioned it went until 2 am or 3 am, but there were no televised proceedings. Proceedings in estimates are televised, and are available to the media and the public to scrutinise. I believe it is the step in the right direction; and a very positive step.
We have been criticised by opposition members about the fact they believe government is not interested in giving information; that, basically, we try to hide information. That is completely untrue, member for Fong Lim. I am more than happy to give the best answers I can and, if I do not know the answers, I always undertake to give a written answer. You are drawing quite a long bow there.
I should add there may have been an error in the first part of my speech where I said estimates is sitting on the Monday. Of course, that is not correct; it is sitting from Tuesday to Friday of the second week.
Opposition needs to make better use of its time. We know the member for Goyder wrote a review of estimates last year – and I am quoting her: there was an expectation by many that their performance would be better than the previous years; however, these expectations were not met.
I am sorry about the grammar; that is what I have. It says they felt they put a few ministers under pressure. I had to smile when the member for Port Darwin said he now has seven hours with the Treasurer. I can tell you, member for Port Darwin, you are going to be lacerated; she will make mince meat of you as she does every year. It might be seven hours of torture for you; that is what I am betting anyway.
On the downside, the following areas were identified- not a disciplined team, unfocused, inability to understand a process of questioning and subsequent questioning, lack of understanding of what estimates is about, poorly informed on the process of estimates, too much ego in the room, lack of strategy.
For many members, last year was the first time for estimates. As government, and with the member for Goyder, there will be an expectation the performance would be better than last year. One would hope so, because it was a pretty abysmal performance by some members opposite.
Madam Speaker, the bottom line is it is a very important process. It is an opportunity for opposition members to understand better the processes of government and governance, funding, and the operations of departments. It is also an opportunity, as I see it, for ministers to be better informed and challenged about those particular issues. I believe it is a very healthy process for democracy, and I commend this motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Statement – Achievements in Developing and Progressing Women’s Policy in the Northern Territory
Note Statement – Achievements in Developing and Progressing Women’s Policy in the Northern Territory
Continued from 4 May 2010.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will continue my remarks regarding the statement by my colleague, the Minister for Women’s Policy, delivered in the House last night.
I was speaking about the paucity of women who are on boards in the top 200 Australian companies - being 8% since 2002 - and that there are no women represented on the boards of more than half the top 200 companies. I said that was an absolute disgrace. As individuals, and people in our electorates who might be passionate about this issue, if we are shareholders in those companies, we can ask questions and demand, as much as shareholders can, to see an increase in the number of women on those boards in the top companies in Australia. It is inexcusable it is only 8%.
Things are moving slowly and, in response, the Australian Institute of Company Directors has launched a mentoring program designed to identify experienced and skilled women who are ASX200 board-ready, with a view to increasing the chances of women being appointed to boards and listing the number of women on boards. That is a positive move forward.
Further, in a commitment to increasing the number of women in leadership roles, the Australian Securities Exchange has proposed new rules that will, from January 2011, require ASX-listed companies to disclose the number of women directors, executives and employees in their annual report. Again, it is hard to believe in the year 2010, only 8% of all board members on the best listed companies in Australia are women. Slowly things are changing, and it will require shareholder pressure to ensure those numbers are increased.
As the minister has reported in her statement to the House, the Territory Labor government is committed to developing a plan to realise equal representation between women and men on all government boards and committees. I look forward to working with the minister in reaching that target. I encourage all members to encourage women they know within their own personal circumstances, as well as through networks and the electorates, to nominate through the website their interest in serving on government boards.
The member for Araluen spoke passionately in this House, as she always does, about domestic violence. As I said yesterday, my agency, particularly Police, is responding in a very significant way, both in policy and resources, to crack down on repeat perpetrators of domestic violence. NTPFES employs a number of recruiting strategies in continuing to build a diverse workforce with a particular focus on attracting Indigenous staff, women police officers, and fire fighters. As of June 2009, women represented 29% of the Northern Territory Police Force, which has been a significant increase. I do not have those numbers with me for the last 10 years, and I would hesitate to say they are probably right up there amongst all police forces of Australia, in as much as 1% shy of 30% of our police force are women. I would like to see that number increase, and there are proactive recruiting strategies being deployed.
If the member for Araluen has noticed the current advertisements on television by Police, they have policewomen in very prominent roles talking about becoming a police officer. The last advertisement I saw was almost exclusively policewomen speaking passionately about their love of the job, what a great job it is, and encouraging women to apply. I commend Police in acknowledging they need to lift those numbers, and they are doing something about it.
One initiative Police has used to encourage women to take on policing roles was targeted workshops held with police members, including new recruits, discussing the role of women and policing, and how women as potential recruits could be better targeted. The outcomes of these workshops led to new marketing campaigns strongly featuring women. As I stated, posters, radio and television advertisements all featured female representatives. In print and electronic advertising the line ‘women encouraged to apply’ was incorporated. I have seen those advertisements on television and they are fantastic. I cannot believe any other police force in Australia would be running that type of proactive campaign.
An evaluation of women expressing interest in a career in policing found there were some concerns and misunderstanding regarding the level of fitness. To address this, the police force hosted two come-and-try days, involving a full introduction to the fitness assessment conducted by a woman fitness instructor, and supported by the most recent police recruits. The next recruit squad contains 27 trainee police officers, 10 of whom are women. This is the highest number of women the NT police has had in one squad.
In September 2008, the Northern Territory Police hosted the 46th International Association of Women in Policing in Darwin for the first time; only the second time hosted in Australia. I spoke at that conference, which was attended by over 500 police women from 34 countries around the world, focused on improving policing for women by identifying best practice and developing technology. It was an outstanding success. I have seen numerous letters from people who attended that conference talking in glowing terms about what is happening to support women police officers in the Territory.
The theme ‘Policing New Territory’ was specifically chosen to showcase the challenges the Northern Territory Police Force faces compared to their counterparts across the world, as they patrol the vast Territory where fewer than 1% of the Australian population inhabits a land mass covering one sixth of the continent.
I would like to speak now about what police are doing to reduce domestic violence, which certainly is blight on society in the Northern Territory. According to the Office of Women’s Policy’s Domestic Violence Data Collection Report 2006, Northern Territory women face a higher risk of domestic and family violence, and of sexual assault, per capita than in other states and territories of Australia. We know, in a high proportion of cases, the violence is perpetrated by a partner, ex-partner, or a member of their family.
That is why last year this government introduced the Domestic and Family Violence Bill to force Territorians to report domestic and family violence to police where they believe serious physical harm will be suffered. Legislation is one thing; backing that up with additional police resources to enforce the legislation is another. Police introduced the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy in December 2004, which included domestic violence as part of that strategy. Some of the numbers are very significant. This government gave police powers to issue domestic violence orders, and the proactive work by police, according to figures I have, show for the 2009-10 year to date, 2596 domestic violence orders have been initiated by police, which is a 36.8% increase for the same period in 2008-09. This is police being proactive in targeting the perpetrators of domestic violence.
I commend former Police Commissioner Paul White with the additional police resources government supplied, who took the decision, around 2004, to support the Violent Crime Reduction Strategy, and to establish dedicated police domestic violence teams at Alice Springs, Katherine, and Darwin police stations. As mentioned, those police work in a proactive way to target repeat perpetrators of domestic violence. That increase of nearly 37% on DVOs issued by police is testament to their vigilance and application of the law. Also, the latest figure I have for the 2009-10 year to date is 1577 DVO contraventions were reported; a 31% increase compared to the same period last year.
We have debated this in the Chamber round and around. Certainly, the number of domestic violence incidents being perpetrated is shocking, however the numbers show women are more confident to report because they know police will take action, police will respond. Women are more confident to report knowing police will respond.
The additional resources given to police, the focus on targeted strategy and work they are doing, the fact it is now mandatory to report domestic violence, means the light is being shone on this horrific crime in a far greater way than in the past, and police are doing their job to crack down on the appalling people who commit acts of domestic violence.
I will conclude my remarks later.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of our first Dry Season public tour visitors, which runs every Wednesday from May to September. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
APPROPRIATION (2010-2011) BILL
(Serial 99)
(Serial 99)
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it being 11 am, I call the Leader of the Opposition to make his reply to the budget.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this budget will be principally remembered for the debt and deficit the Treasurer, Delia Lawrie, is foisting onto Territorians. The cumulative deficits detailed in this year’s budget papers add up to more than $720m. The budget papers also indicate by 2013, the nett financial liabilities of the Territory taxpayer will be $4.8bn.
The Treasurer claims a sharp increase in the Territory’s budget deficits is responsible. There is nothing responsible about foisting an additional $4000 in debt on every man, woman and child in the Northern Territory. Every man, woman and child in the Territory now owes $7450, and that is before our superannuation liabilities are included. Calculate the coming wave of superannuation payouts, and our per capita liabilities jump to over $20 000.
It is worth reflecting on the Victorian budget which was also handed down yesterday. This year, Victoria will post a surplus of $395m. Next year’s forecast is for a surplus of $872m. In the years following, Victoria will enjoy surpluses in the order of $1.2bn. At the same time, public sector debt in Victoria is set to fall. These facts illustrate just how badly the Territory Treasurer has handled the challenges of difficult economic times.
The Treasurer has opted for the easy solution to falling revenues, deep deficits and increased debt. This budget has more than a financial deficit. This budget has a deficit of vision, a deficit of courage, and a deficit of honesty. Every budget we are told of a record spend in health, a record budget for education, more money for law and order; we have heard it again and again. Yet, Territorians wait longer in hospital emergency departments; Territorians have the poorest performing education system in the country. With just 2% of the national population, the Territory has a staggering 22% of the worst performing schools in the country. Territorians also endure an epidemic of violent crime.
These failures have come despite the Territory budget increasing from $2.2bn when Labor came to office, to $5.1bn next financial year - a massive increase in revenue. That massive increase in revenue has not been matched by an improvement in the core services the Territory government is responsible for, nor has it been used to prepare the Territory for the proverbial ‘rainy day’. A prudent government would have salted away some of the windfall revenue this Labor government has received in the past decade - just some of it. It is in the times of plenty preparation for the inevitable lean times is made. That is when you prepare. The Territory’s debt could have been greatly reduced, perhaps even eliminated, had Labor simply saved the unexpected GST revenue, allocated funds on the basis of needs, followed through with strict controls, and matched outcomes to expenditures. This approach would address the serious social needs of our community, and provided savings - a different approach, a different attitude. A hard-headed approach to policy decisions has come a distant second to cynical, political manoeuvring.
This Labor government is a stranger to tough decisions. It has no coherent or comprehensive plan for the Territory now or into the future. As a consequence, we are forced into borrowing against the future simply to pay the weekly expenses. Labor is running the Territory government on tick.
The Chief Minister and Treasurer calculate they will be long gone when their irresponsible spending will need to be paid for. Their lazy attitude towards money has, is, and will cost the Territory dearly. Consider the SIHIP debacle. The Territory government’s disastrous miscalculation of the actual cost of delivering housing to the bush resulted in the federal government drastically underfunding SIHIP. Let us not forget the Territory government calculated $672m would pay for 750 new homes, 230 replacements, 2500 housing upgrades, essential infrastructure to support the new houses, and town camps living condition improvements. Having misled the federal government as to the cost of delivering housing to the bush, the Henderson government then failed to oversee expenditure of the money provided for SIHIP. As a result, some 70% of the funds for housing were being spent on everything other than building houses. Hence, $50m of SIHIP money was squandered before a single house was constructed.
Indeed, I am told SIHIP remains so inefficient that contracted employees are sitting idle in remote communities because they cannot get access to the houses they are contracted to repair - more money wasted. This continual waste has already resulted in the infrastructure component of the program being shifted to other budget lines. Well-placed sources believe the original SIHIP program may eventually cost $2bn by the time it is completed. The money will now have to be found elsewhere, and the federal government will be demanding Territory Labor pay for its mistakes.
The effects are also being felt in the communities, where the new SIHIP houses will be smaller and less suited to bush conditions than promised; where the rebuilds or refurbishments will be diminished in scope and quality; where infrastructure necessary will be greatly delayed - perhaps never delivered. What a stuff-up! What is the situation now? What is the explanation from this Labor government? How much has SIHIP spent? How many new houses has it delivered? How many refurbishments or renovations? Do not look for honest answers in this devious government’s budget papers; not a word from the Treasurer about the progress of SIHIP - not a single word. I note the Housing Minister claims Budget 2010-11 provides $354m as a part of SIHIP. Well, that is more than half the total SIHIP budget. Are we going to see 375 new houses built in 2010-11? Hardly! That is just another exercise of inflated accounting.
Last year in my budget reply, I proposed a study of the cost of providing hospital services at Royal Darwin Hospital. Had the Henderson government followed my suggestion, it would have been in a much better position to understand the long-term implications of the health agreement it signed at COAG. It would have the necessary information to understand short, medium and long-term funding pressures on our health system. It would have provided vital information on the financial import of the COAG deal.
The government signed an agreement which will eventually require Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals to provide services at what is called a national efficient price. If Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals fail to achieve that national efficient price, the shortfall will come from the Territory’s budget. A competent government would know the relative cost between services in its hospitals and the national average. The Henderson government does not, and is desperate to hide the significance of this fact. This disturbing fact emerged in a briefing between my Health spokesman, Matt Conlan, and the Health Department last week. The study I proposed would have given them that understanding.
Instead, we have an agreement based more on hope than hard facts. We have no idea how the Territory’s budget will be impacted within just five years. No idea, no plans, no timetable, should be the motto of this government. Look at the Treasurer’s prediction in her last budget reply. She claimed the Australian economy was in recession when it was not. Indeed, the Australian economy never entered the recession this Treasurer said we had to have. The Treasurer also predicted the Territory’s economy would buck the global economic trends and forecast a growth rate of 2% in 2009-10. Well, wrong again - wrong. The Territory economy has flatlined, growing at 0.4% in the last 12 months. Yet, as recently as February this year, the Treasurer repeated in this parliament her regular boast about delivering a strong economy. In part, this flatlining economy is the result of the slow progress of capital works projects. This is a government in love with the big announcement. It is a shame it is not as devoted to ensuring the touted projects are completed in a timely manner.
In 2008-09, the Treasurer and Infrastructure minister, Delia Lawrie, announced in the budget the government had allocated $870m for infrastructure spending. The revote out, according to last year’s Budget Paper No 4, was $485m. That means considerably more than half the $870m promised, advertised and boasted about in that budget was not spent. Taking into account the final total capital works budget estimates, the government’s actual spend on infrastructure during the 2008-09 financial year was $355m. Did we see the media release, did we see the glossy brochures, did we see the boast? No.
The infrastructure spend in the 2009-10 budget was $1.3bn and, according to yesterday’s budget papers, the revote for 2009-10 was $842.6m. It is worth remembering a proportion of that money which was not spent last financial year was rolled over from the previous budget, and the budget before, and so it goes on.
Some examples – let us start with Katherine and the Labor government’s proposed bypass. Has a stretch of road ever been so well named? The plan was to divert a section of the Stuart Highway to ensure road trains which currently rumble through the main street are diverted around the town. A sum of $10m was allocated by the Treasurer in 2009-10. The Katherine bypass has truly bypassed the people of Katherine.
Anyone who knows this government also knows their capacity for clichs, spin and rhetoric. This brings me to one of their favourite nouns –‘lifestyle’
As part of adding to the great Territory lifestyle, the Labor government promised, during the 2008 election campaign, to upgrade the Palmerston boat ramp. Two years on, what do we have? A concept plan, plenty of chitchat by various ministers, but little enhancement to our lifestyle. In fact, on the weekend, Fisheries minister, Kon Vatskalis, issued yet another media release which made a passing reference to the boat ramp enhancement. Top End fishers just want it built; they want you to do what you said you would - just build it.
Alice Springs has also borne the bitter chill of the government’s neglect. The revote for Alice Springs Hospital now stands at $38m; and when it comes to tourism, the government has turned its back on the centre with its abandonment of the Mereenie Loop project, first promised by Labor in 2001; 2010, still no loop. That is nine years of promises which have not been fulfilled; which brings us to the government’s astonishing, colossal announcement of a $1.8bn infrastructure budget in financial year 2010-11. As I have already discussed, in 2008-09, 30 years after self-government, the infrastructure budget was $870m; last year, it was $1.3bn; this year it is out to $1.8bn.
We can be assured of two things: a large proportion of that money will come straight from the Commonwealth’s coffers, and a large proportion will not be spent in the next financial year. However, you have the headline, you have the boast; you have the big announcement. You may consider, in the scheme of things, delays are not overly important. I ask you to think again. Let us look at this in the context of the events of the past few weeks. The sad disregard shown by this government for Darwin Harbour, and the blind eye it has turned to ongoing pollution in our harbour is a sorry manifestation of this government’s love of the big announcement. In other words, this government, this Treasurer, writes cheques its budget does not honour.
In the 2008-09 budget, the Treasurer promised to spend $59.6m for, and I quote:
- … further development of East Arm Port to meet the project demand.
A sizeable chunk of that $59.6m, $35m in fact, was to be spent on an overland covered conveyor to improve bulk ship loading operations and environmental and traffic safety. Most of that money still has not been spent. This worthwhile infrastructure would have served to reduce pollution in Darwin Harbour, assist industry to go about its business in an environmentally sustainable manner and, in the process, added to the infrastructure capacity of our work. As a consequence of the failure to spend that money, copper concentrate has been polluting Darwin Harbour, and government ministers have been buck passing responsibility for their failures onto senior bureaucrats, instead of taking responsibility themselves.
I quote the Environment minister, Karl Hampton, on Stateline last Friday night: ‘… the buck doesn’t just stop with me …’. It never does with Henderson government ministers. Failure to spend the money when it should have has cost Darwin Harbour dearly. That failure was part of a fortnight of revelations of the complete breakdown of environmental protection which forced the Henderson government into announcing more environment inspectors with NRETAS. The opposite is …
Mr Henderson: Tell us about Mt Todd.
Mr MILLS: Getting desperate now, mate. You are just going to have to cope this. Of course the opposition welcomes additional officers protecting our environment. We condemn the ministerial failures and deceptions which preceded that decision. I saw the Chief Minister claim on Stateline the fact people were reporting pollution was an indication as to how well the whistleblowers act was working. It sounds like an episode from Yes, Minister. This time it was the Chief Minister resorting to a silly, amateurish deception when confronted with the failures of his environmental protection regime. The whistleblowers on pollution of Darwin Harbour went to the media in spite of the act. The whistleblowers act makes their actions illegal. These anonymous people risked their careers.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: They risked their careers, their financial security, to protect something that belongs to all of us; the environment. In fact, the Chief Minister’s whistleblowers law threatens these people with imprisonment. The Chief Minister has the hide, the audacity, to claim - we know Darwin Harbour is being poisoned with copper concentrate as an example of how well his laws are working. What a disgrace! This is another example on how little the truth means to the Henderson government.
Today, I have a budget announcement which does not involve expenditure, does not require greater debt for Territorians. The Country Liberals would amend the whistleblowers act to allow people to go the media, and to parliamentarians, when they believe the health of individuals, or the environment, are at risk of imminent harm. Indeed, such a measure would probably be a revenue raiser, given the increase in fines the government recently announced. It would also save money mopping up the failures of government into the future. It would also protect those brave employees who alerted the media to a completely dysfunctional child protection system in the Northern Territory.
It would protect the member for Arnhem, the former Minister for Child Protection, who threatened to hunt down and prosecute. It would protect those children who are placed in harm’s way because the system does not work; because the government is more concerned about protecting its image than protecting the safety of children. It would recognise our public servants are often best placed to inform the public and politicians on what is happening. It would improve our system of government.
Whilst I am considering the issue of child protection, I am compelled to refer to a media release from the latest Child Protection Minister, the member for Casuarina. On 19 March, the minister stated, in a media release: ‘Since 2005, the NT government has increased the child protection budget by around 117%’. It has not; it has not! In 2005-06, Child Protection Services had a budget of $24.5m. In 2009-10, Child Protection Services had a budget of $25.3m. That is a 3% increase.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Indeed in 2009-10, the budget was reduced by $500 000. How did the minister come up with 117%? He did this by adding up the entire family and children services budget; by including expenditure which has nothing to do with child protection. What a simple-minded deception.
It is moments like this when I wonder how the member for Nelson feels about propping this sham of a government. He must also despair, as do we, at government policies which have created a housing crisis in the Northern Territory. ABS figures this week show established house prices jumped by 17.5% in the last 12 months; 17.5%. Darwin was second only to Sydney in the median house price of established houses in the September quarter.
Darwin is a great little capital, however when housing in a town of 120 000 people is more expensive than all but one of the nation’s capital cities, there has been a terrible policy failure. It is not as though we have a land shortage in the Territory. In 2000, the median dwelling price in Darwin was $179 800. It had increased to $540 000 by 2009. How many teachers, nurses, posties, public servants are paid triple what they were at the start of the decade? The skyrocketing price of houses is placing a terrible burden on young Territorians hoping to get into the housing market.
We also have the highest rents in Australia. Families have been squeezed out of the Territory by the cost of housing. What a disgraceful legacy Labor will leave Territorians. Make no mistake; compound policy failure by the Labor government has created the Territory’s housing crisis. Land release fell dangerously, disastrously below demand. In 2007, the Treasurer claimed 300 housing blocks was the requirement for the Darwin region. Last year’s budget dramatically overhauled that figure, lifting it to 1700 per annum. This year’s budget says the estimate to June 2011 is 2230. Last year, the Territory Labor government produced a pamphlet called Housing the Territory. It states between 2009 and 2013 the Territory government plans to release 6400 housing lots in Darwin and Palmerston. On the basis of the latest Treasury estimates, that is thousands of housing lots short of what is necessary. It does not even match the 8500 lots needed under last year’s budget estimates.
However, this government’s failure goes even deeper. Expensive government propaganda promised 490 housing lots were going to be released in Bellamack, Johnston and Rosebery Park during 2009. I live in Palmerston; that figure has not been achieved. This incompetent government could not even meet its own totally inadequate targets. Every homebuyer, every person renting is paying the price of that profound failure. Having driven up the price of housing to astronomical levels, the government continues to tinker at the edges of the problem with ineffective policies, overwhelmed by the huge increase in the price of housing.
Stamp duty relief is help for homebuyers, but changes are swamped by the increase in the price of homes. A 17% increase would add $85 000 to the price of a $500 000 home. That is the reality facing young homebuyers. A year passes as you desperately try to save enough to put a deposit on a house, and you find at the end of that year you need an extra $85 000. At the same time, rents rise faster than your boss will ever increase your wages.
While I applaud measures which will assist people in buying their homes in this overheated and unaffordable housing market, I also applaud measures to address highly inefficient taxation. What I do take exception to are measures which will, ultimately, see little real gain. Have they not learned anything since coming to power 10 years ago? Adding further demand pressures on a tight supply market can only have one effect – higher prices for houses. What we needed from the government was an announcement such as the one yesterday on stamp duty relief - a real and tangible mechanism to address the matter of supply. That is the issue. However, there was none of substance. The housing market is in a shocking state. It is so out of alignment we have massive pressures like the INPEX project coming, and you cannot fix these problems with a media release; with a one-off item. You have to completely rethink what you have done and put in place the necessary immediate actions, lay the foundation for the change, and have the next pieces ready to put into place.
The Country Liberals have developed real policies to bring real hope to Territorians trapped in Labor’s housing crisis. We have proposed the Territory Housing Land Corporation to streamline residential development, and enable first homebuyers to enter the market at a greatly discounted price. We have announced the Living the Dream Policy which will allow families to jointly purchase homes at a median value with the Territory government. We have put forward a plan for a transitional housing village to ease the desperate plight of the many families who, through no fault of their own, find themselves homeless as a result of Darwin’s housing crisis.
Today, I announce another cog in a comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis in the Territory. A Mills government will implement a supported housing policy which will provide coordinated care for families with complex needs. We have families living in public housing with members suffering from mental health problems, drug and alcohol addiction, and severe behavioural issues. They make life a nightmare for people living with them, and their neighbours, and frequently vandalise their homes which consumes a great deal of police and Territory housing resources. The current systemic tolerance of people misbehaving in public housing must end.
Our supported housing policy would shift these families into newly-constructed emergency housing, and provide them with professional help and support to deal with these profound social problems. This will provide families with a chance to break the destructive cycle of acute dysfunction currently being passed on from one generation to the next. Very strict conditions will apply to living within this accommodation. The focus will be on improving how these families operate so they can function in the wider society. The removal of dysfunctional families from public housing will greatly improve living conditions for other tenants of Territory Housing. It is unfair so many people are forced to live with deeply troubled, disruptive and abusive neighbours. It will improve the availability of existing public housing, and offer these struggling families a chance to change their lives for the better.
Improving the plight of children trapped in dysfunctional families is an important consideration in the development of this policy.
The Henderson government has put these issues in the too hard basket. It is deeply reluctant to evict families from public housing, no matter how bad their behaviour. By failing to provide an alternative program, the government is obliged to ignore the many instances of appalling behaviour by tenants in public housing. This policy failure has allowed public housing hell holes to develop. This does not protect children, and means they are more likely to follow their parents into lives on the fringes of society. I want to break that vicious cycle.
If successful, the benefits will flow to the wider community. Kids at risk of ending up in prison in later life must be given an increased chance to become productive members of our society. The breakdown in law and order in the Territory must be tackled at many levels. A Mills government will spend $3m in acquiring the land, $10m on headworks and facility development, and provide $850 000 per annum for ongoing capital investment. Recurrent expenditure providing the professional staff, administrative support and security for the project will be $15.3m.
The profound failure of residential land release also points to the need for improved land use planning in the Northern Territory. There has been a lack of strategic thinking regarding development of our major urban centres. This lack of strategic planning has impacted upon industrial development, stifling economic growth.
Today, I am announcing my commitment to the creation of the Northern Territory Planning Commission to provide strategic advice to the Territory government. The Planning Commission will be comprised of 12 members with a diverse set of skills, and responsible for guiding urban, industrial and agricultural development across the Northern Territory. It will establish consistent and objective planning principles, set appropriate land use objectives, forecast future transport needs for road, rail, sea, air, and identify gaps in the existing planning process.
I envisage this Planning Commission to be comprised of architects, demographers, economists, environmental scientists, urban planners and other specialists. It will bring rigor and independence to this critical area of government responsibility. I heard the interjection, member for Nelson. It will remove planning from the whim of a minister and enhance the departmental effort. The Planning Commission will be allocated an additional $800 000 by a Mills government.
I also reaffirm my commitment to my $27m Early Education Policy announced earlier this year: the way forward - early education for a strong future, will see the introduction of an expert panel on literacy and numeracy; literacy and numeracy assessments for Year 1 students; after-school literacy and numeracy programs; additional classroom support for teachers; the introduction of multidisciplinary behavioural management teams; more support for school counsellors, and assistance for COGSO to access government grants. Without a significant overhaul of the Territory’s education system, our students will not get the best possible chance to achieve results in line with their counterparts interstate.
Much said in this House is let go through to the keeper due to the nature of robust debate. However, I wish to pick up the following statement made by the Education minister. He has described our early years of education policy as a ‘flimsy education policy’. It is now obvious to those opposite, including the Chief Minister, that they have failed to grasp the fact this announcement is one of many in respect to education; this one specifically targeted at urban schools and at the early years. I find it curious a government which has presided over a continuation of the worst education outcomes in the country, has delivered nothing tangible to address the very real need in our early years.
This is a government which has denigrated our focus on getting early support to our kids, our schools and our teachers, as flimsy and not worthy of support. Yesterday’s budget confirms the Henderson government is content to let education standards in the Territory drift ever further behind the rest of the country.
Next year’s budget is about the same as this financial year. The NAPLAN results confirmed parents’ worst fears about the standard of education in the Territory, and the Henderson government’s response is to flatline the funding. Once again, the Treasurer could not bring herself to offer this simple truth in her budget speech; that was missing. I believe the government should be working hard to identify areas where it can reduce expenditure; however, it simply beggars belief the government has allowed Education’s funding to stagnate. We cannot afford to ignore the immense challenges that confront our education system. We should have seen a substantial investment in programs to improve education outcomes in the Territory; we have not.
Today I reiterate the Country Liberal’s policy of keeping Berrimah gaol, and instituting a different system of Corrections. A new prison is a complete waste of money. It perpetuates the current approach to Corrections which has not delivered the necessary changes to law and order. It is more than two years since this white elephant was announced. Should the government proceed with this waste of money, the cost of a new prison is likely to top $400m. That money could be so much better spent on prison farms and programs to reduce the rate of repeat offending in the Territory. The substantial up-front savings between a new prison and a system of prison farms could be used to reduce this government’s exploding debt. The long-term financial benefits of moving repeat offenders out of the corrections systems and into productive lives are enormous. Productive lives are facilitated by a good education, good housing, and having good examples.
I also reiterate a Mills government would reduce the number of political advisers burdening the public purse. We need more substance and less spin from government. The ranks of overpaid political minders will be thinned by a Mills government. A Mills government would also initiate a budget line by budget line, program by program analysis of the effectiveness of government spending. That is the very least you would expect from a government announcing collective deficits of $720m, and total liabilities of $4.8m. However, the Treasurer’s complete silence in yesterday’s budget speech about reduced spending indicates the government did not bother with systemic analysis of spending. It should have searched every corner of government spending for fat, for waste, for failure. It could not be bothered establishing a committee to prune unnecessary government expenditure. After nine years, there is no doubt wasteful programs have found comfortable measures in the government’s spending programs. These programs continue to exist at the expense of future government initiatives.
In summary, Territorians are saddled with a self-satisfied government which lacks the necessary imagination, courage, and drive to manage the challenges of governing the Territory.
Madam Speaker, we have a government which has little to offer beyond empty words and phrases. This is a big debt, small ideas budget that fails to charter course to an improved Northern Territory. Territorians deserve a better deal than they are getting from those occupying the Treasury benches.
Members: Hear, hear!
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement – Achievements in Developing and Progressing Women’s Policy in the Northern Territory
Note Statement – Achievements in Developing and Progressing Women’s Policy in the Northern Territory
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, were you wishing to continue? You had about 20 seconds, so if the Leader of Government Business could move that you have an extension of time to allow you to complete your …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the Chief Minister be given an extension of time so he can finish his comments pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is good to see the love is being shared around in extending time. I did it several times yesterday.
Mr Elferink: After such a heart warming speech I could not but try to help you.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, John.
Moving back to the debate on Women’s Policy, and listening to the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply, I have to challenge the Leader of the Opposition with his rallying against the deficit position in this year’s budget. He did not state how many women he would sack from the public service to bring the budget back into surplus.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: How many women in the Department of Local Government? How many women work in the Department of Local Government?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, honourable members. I know it is a very exciting morning, but perhaps the Chief Minister could be listened to with somewhat more quietness.
Mr HENDERSON: This is a debate about a budget. Yes, we have a deficit. The opposition is attacking the deficit. He did not, in any way, establish in his budget reply where he would find the savings. He talked about government programs being wasteful. Step up to the plate, show the courage of your convictions, say which programs you would cut, how many people you would sack and, regarding the debate about Women’s Policy, how that would affect women sacked in the Department of Local Government. I am not sure of the gender breakdown, but you said you would abolish the Department of Local Government.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: There was interjection from the opposition in debate recently that they do not do anything. These are people’s lives you are playing with, Leader of the Opposition. You cannot be genuine about what you would do, where the axe would fall, and who it would affect. That is the challenge for the Leader of the Opposition. Where is his axe going to fall, how many people, and who, are going to be affected? In particular, given this debate, how many women are going to lose their jobs and not be able to provide for their families under the axe the Leader of the Opposition would swing through government to return the budget to surplus? That is the challenge for the Leader of the Opposition.
Going back to my comments on reducing domestic violence, the vast majority of those domestic violence assaults were attributed to alcohol-related offences. This is an ongoing complex issue government is focused on, and I commend the police in the very substantial effort they are applying at the moment in targeting repeat perpetrators of domestic violence. The number of women reporting is increasing There is yet to be analysis applied to how much of that increase is in relation to mandatory reporting, however we will keep an eye on that.
I share, with the member for Araluen, her abhorrence of domestic violence. It is an absolute blight on our community in the Territory, and we will continue to work to reduce and, in an ideal world, eliminate those serious assaults which, tragically, occur every day in the Northern Territory.
My colleague, the Minister for Women’s Policy, articulated many initiatives we, as a government, have undertaken and continue to focus on. There has been significant input on our side of politics - and this is not meant to be politically offensive to the opposition; we have a significant number on our benches. Five of our 11 are women, making a very substantial and substantive contribution to Caucus and Cabinet. We have been the government which has appointed, absolutely, through merit. For the first time, two of our eight judges are women, which is something that has happened under a Labor government. Both those appointments were on merit, and it is good to see that glass ceiling is being broken on the bench. More magistrates are women, I believe, than has been the case previously in the Territory.
There is a heap of scholarships and programs I have in my notes, however my colleague has spoken about most of those.
I know my predecessor was very keen on increased investment in women’s sports and infrastructure. That has happened, and I pay tribute to Clare Martin, the previous Chief Minister. She doggedly pursed a new home for Territory netball. That has been completed at a cost of $6.2m, and we have more women competing at national sporting competitions than ever before. That was a very specific and targeted investment. We have developed a number of programs to support remote Indigenous women participating in sport, such as shire softball competitions, etcetera.
We could talk across all areas of community and society regarding the very significant and important role women have in our community, our society, and our business community.
One of the events I enjoy attending every year - and I do not think I have missed one since we came to government in 2001 – is the annual Telstra Business Woman of the Year Awards. That is always a really inspirational event, particularly because it is targeted at women in small business. To hear those stories of women who have had the courage to step up alone into the very complicated, rough and tumble world of small business, as well as juggling a family at home, is inspirational. I enjoy that event, and enjoy talking to women who have succeeded and, importantly, when they become a winner, become a mentor for other women entering business. All the women who have won those awards have been very generous with their time in mentoring and supporting other women who are stepping into business. There is well established network in the Northern Territory which encourages and supports women entering small business.
I conclude on a positive, because we need to be positive and thank Telstra for their support for women in business and the annual awards. That does show the top end of town can be serious when they want to in supporting women in business. Congratulations to Telstra.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I have to deal with some of the issues raised by the Chief Minister. First, I will go to the issue of domestic violence as a proportion of the overall assaults in the Northern Territory. I am astonished when I read police report after police report - I am talking about the annual reports – which state, proportionally, according to the offences against the person, the number of domestic violence assault rates are dropping. Each year it has gone from about 52% to 51%, from memory, to the most recent report of 47%. The Chief Minister tells us there is an increasing proportion of domestic violence because women are more comfortable reporting domestic violence offences. Yes, more women are reporting domestic violence; what is not occurring is a smaller number of assaults in the Northern Territory.
The reason a proportionally smaller number of women are reporting domestic violence every year is because there is, overall, an increasing number of assaults which do not relate to domestic violence; some 80% since the change of government. We have seen the assault rate increase, and a proportional drop. This does not reconcile with the Department of Justice crime statistics, which consistently support the Chief Minister’s assertion that domestic violence is proportionally higher than is being reported by the police, and forms more than 50% of the overall number of assaults reported.
The part that surprised me, when I discovered how this anomalous situation occurred, particularly when you consider the base set of data is exactly the same as that obtained by the Department of Justice and Police department - it comes from exactly the same source - is how you can get these anomalous outcomes in domestic violence reporting. It turns out the police reporting includes certain offences which are not included in the Department of Justice system, because the Department of Justice system only turns its attention to assaults, including aggravated assaults.
I find it fascinating the Northern Territory government would produce, from the same set of data, two different figures, champion women, when, in the domestic violence figures, they do not include rape. I do not understand that because you end up with a set of numbers producing an outcome which is different, depending on which department is running the figures. We find this interesting situation in the Northern Territory where, in an effort to bump up the number of domestic violence offences being reported as a proportion of overall offences, the government chooses to not count rape as a crime. I find that a very grim approach by this government.
Let us discount rape. Let us not talk about rape, where the vast majority of victims are women, because we have to get the domestic violence numbers up to suit our agenda. That is an unhealthy situation, and is what happens when spin and rhetoric overtake common sense and logic.
I pick up on the Chief Minister’s comments regarding the Department of Local Government, which we have said, should we take over government, we will wind up. They think they can run this fear program: ‘Oh, they are going to sack all the women’. Not true, not true. Anyone who says that is lying. I will tell you why: because we have already announced that would be a redeployment approach. The interjections and comments I hear from the Chief Minister repeatedly are we would sack these people - we have to keep the department going so we do not sack these people. We are not going to sack them, we will redeploy them; find other places for them to go.
More importantly, the argument from this government is you have to keep a department going because it is there. That is the logic of the argument. The department is there; you cannot get rid of it. A department has to actually do something. Whilst I know the public servants work very hard in the department to deliver whatever it is to satisfy the government - and I am not in any way reflecting on their individual efforts - from a policy perspective, you have a department which does two things: one, it provides certain forms of assistance to local governments; two, it provides a regulatory structure, a police force, if you like, on local government. As has been explained in this House, those functions can be done differently, and from a different source.
We have now restructured local government in the Northern Territory and have a series of shires in place. Nearly every square inch of the Northern Territory comes under the governance of some local government authority. They seem to be answerable to a department, and the Local Government Act does load into it some answerability. The Local Government Act distinguishes between municipal and more remote shires, and creates different structures of reporting and accountability. However, if you have a council like the Darwin City Council, or the Alice Springs Town Council, or the Katherine Town Council, the Department of Local Government does not have that much to do with them; they govern themselves, as is correct.
The Department of Local Government would help many of the small, remote communities and community government councils before the amalgamation of these councils into shires. That has now changed, and we have a series of shires which have governance models in place. If you have this transition to shires which have governance models in place, what is the function of the Department of Local Government? To help these shires? LGANT can do that. Let us give LGANT the administrative assistance component and a grant to do that so they can employ the best experienced staff.
In that model, you would have an association answerable to its own membership, rather than the government residing over the top like some tribal chief. We would create a compliance environment which would still have an auditing role; it would be attached to the minister’s office, or some such structure. It may even have its own statutory structure, or become a statutory authority. Those details will be worked out. You can then rely on local government to do what it has to do in service delivery. If there is a breach of requirements, then the auditing process put in place can answer that.
This whole process of reform was supposed to remove the layers of bureaucracy from the local government process. This government would argue, to protect the women and men who work in this department, we have to change nothing, do nothing. We make no decisions as a government because we might be redeploying public servants to other areas where they are needed.
I reject completely the assertions by the Chief Minister, and other members opposite. They only want to do what they did at the last election campaign - scare people rather than talk about the principles of good governance for the women of the Northern Territory - the principles of good governance you would hope a government of their ilk would adhere to. They want to run fear campaigns through the public service, and they did it the last time. They were not honest public servants last time, and they will not be honest this time. Because of their dishonesty, they find themselves in a situation where public servants do not trust what they say.
A clear example of how the public service is feeling betrayed is the 2.5% pay cap this government has as policy with the EBAs. That is what they factored in for growth in public sector employee expenses this year. They are still thinking about that 2.5% pay cap. Moreover, this government is making it tougher for families because, as a result of the 2.5% pay cap, it is also introducing an expenditure regime, according to them, which will drive CPI up to 3.1%. I wonder how the government will explain to a public servant with two-and-a-half or three kids around her ankles while in the aisles at Woolworths or Coles, while she is trying to feed her family, she has received a pay cut under this government. With a 2.5% pay rise, that public servant will not catch up to the government’s own predicted CPI. They are cutting the wages of public servants in the real world, and that includes the women mentioned in this statement.
The government acknowledges there are more women coming through the system, and one of the problems with the glass ceiling is many women do not advance as far as their male counterparts. You have a large body of women at the lower end of the public service who are going to be worst affected by this pay cut, because they have families to look after. Unfortunately, in many families, the parental role falls onto the shoulders of women.
You would think the government would show some sensitivity and give assistance to the women of the public service. They come into this House with a puff piece which is so soft and fluffy I thought of replacing my bed with it and sleep on that; it would be more comfortable. It offers the women of the Northern Territory very little apart from puffery. This government has shifted its priority on women from the Chief Minister’s portfolio to somewhere else. It is a junior minister’s portfolio.
There used to be a Women’s Advisory Council, a government funded and sponsored body answering directly to the Chief Minister on women’s issues, made up of women drawn from all parts of the community. Where do I find their annual reports nowadays? I do not. Why not? They do not exist; this government cut the funding. This government waxes lyrical about how much they care for women, how much they believe in women’s issues in the community, however, they cut the source of women’s advice to government. Moreover, as far as the female public servants are concerned, they are going to get a pay cut under this government at the next budgetary cycle, and why is that? This government failed to contain public service growth at the outset.
I have never argued for public service cuts. This side of the House has never threatened, or in any way suggested, we were going to sack anybody. The line they trot out is not true; it is part of the fear machine.
The unrestrained growth in the public service has brought financial pressure onto this government where they can no longer afford to pay women in the public service, who have to feed their kids, decent wage increases. That is the problem they have built for themselves. They have increased the size of the public service from 14 000 to 18 500. If they had increased the size of the public service from 17 000 to 17 500, for argument sake, over the same period, they would have sufficient funds to pay their public servants and not threaten women with the pay cuts because this government cannot afford to pay their female public service staff.
That hangs over them like a thunder cloud. Their worst failing of all is their irrational attempt to cover up on this and cover up on that, to deal with this issue and deal with that issue; to relentlessly blow the budget. Every single year expenditure far outweighs - and I am talking about appropriation expenditure, not just SPPs and NPs - what is budgeted because that is their piggy bank, and they reach into it every time: ‘We are going to spend money on this, we are going to spend money on that’, with very little thought for planning. It is all trotted out on a whim.
Whilst we give them $40m each year to deal with contingencies they did not predict, they spend much more than that; they drain that. They spend it every time they go into Cabinet and feel like covering up on something which might be politically bad for them. Rather than governing, they respond. It is like watching Pavlov’s dog in governance. They get one stimulus over here, they respond with a predicable stimulus over there. It is like a frog’s leg. If you stick an electric probe into a frog’s leg it twitches. That is not governance. Governance is considered thinking, learning when to jump, how to jump, how far to jump, and what you are trying to achieve. That is the difference between the two sides of this House – that side of the House has the frog’s legs approach.
Madam Speaker, should the people of the Northern Territory choose to give the Country Liberals governance after the next election - whenever that may be - I can promise they will get considered, prudent, sensible government, not something that uses its reflex nerve every time it is poked.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of representatives of the KSTL, the Konfederasaun Sindicatu Timor Lorose’e which is the peak union body in Timor-Leste, the equivalent of the ACTU, participating in a study tour in Darwin. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Report on Payments for Phone and Travel for Members – Paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of Administrative Arrangements
Report on Payments for Phone and Travel for Members – Paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of Administrative Arrangements
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the report for the Department of the Legislative Assembly pursuant to paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of the Administrative Arrangements, November 2007, which contains annual schedules concerning government payments for each member for satellite and mobile phones, and the annual schedule of member travel at government expense for the year 2009.
I also table a letter from the Chief Minister summarising the smart phone expenses for each minister, and also the Leader of the Opposition during the 2009 calendar year.
MOTION
Print Paper – Report on Payments for Phone and Travel for Members - Paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of Administrative Arrangements
Print Paper – Report on Payments for Phone and Travel for Members - Paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of Administrative Arrangements
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note statement - Achievements in Developing and Progressing Women’s Policy in the Northern Territory
Note statement - Achievements in Developing and Progressing Women’s Policy in the Northern Territory
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
APPROPRIATION (2010-2011) BILL
(Serial 99)
(Serial 99)
Continued from 4 May 2010.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I fully support the budget handed down by the Treasurer yesterday in this House. It is all about delivering now for Territory families and building the future right across this wonderful Northern Territory of ours. It is a budget crafted in very difficult financial circumstances. No Treasurer, no government, wants to preside over a deficit budget situation unless you absolutely have to. The first responsibility we have, as government, is to protect the economy and jobs in the Northern Territory. That is what we very deliberately decided to do.
We can see the extent of the success of that strategy in the budget that preceded last year - a $1.3bn capital spend which, in itself, was a record - double the previous largest capital expenditure in the Territory’s history. That protected over 3000 jobs in our economy. In the budget papers handed down yesterday, we have seen a revised final outcome for the 2009-10 financial year in GST growth of 0.4%. That meant the Territory, like every jurisdiction in Australia, survived the global financial crisis, and our economy did not go into recession when developed economies around the world headed for enormous recessions; some in Europe are still very close to almost insolvency.
The reason our economy did not go into recession, why thousands of jobs were not lost in the Territory’s economy last year, was as a direct result of our decision to go into deficit country, our decision to double the infrastructure spend across the Northern Territory by $1.3bn, and also to sign up to the Commonwealth government’s stimulus package the opposition voted against in Canberra. I know many people who work in and around the construction industry in the Northern Territory and, as the GFC hit, as access to bank finance dried up, most of the construction workforce in the Northern Territory did swing into those government tenders and government jobs. Many people are saying thank goodness for the stimulus package from the Commonwealth because we would not have had any contracts, we would not have had any jobs.
You can see through those budget papers that, if the opposition had been in government, and if, as is their stated policy, they did not go into deficit and maintained at least a budget neutral position, our economy would have gone into recession, thousands of jobs would have been lost, and they have compounded that in their budget reply today. The Leader of the Opposition has basically stated he would wipe out $4.8bn of debt over the four year period we are predicting to accumulate that level of debt.
That equates to 6000 public service jobs, and he cannot have it both ways. He cannot attack the government for going into deficit and then not articulate a strategy from the alternative government on how they would bring the budget back into neutral, or back into surplus. He has to articulate that strategy. He has no credibility in attacking the government unless he has an alternate plan, and he has no plan. He has no plan to protect jobs, no plan to create jobs, and when he talks about the deficit, he is talking about one of two things - taking an axe to the public service by slashing expenditure, slashing jobs, or significantly increasing taxes. It is the only way he can reduce the deficit. He has not, and he has failed in his duty as a leader today to clearly articulate what he would do if faced, as Chief Minister or as Treasurer, with a massive and unexpected - totally unexpected - collapse in government revenues. That is the real test of leadership, and he has squibbed that today.
The budget has been roundly applauded, particularly by business groups across the Territory. Chris Young, from the Chamber of Commerce had a long interview with Daryl Manzie this morning. I quote from a question regarding the budget:
- … I think from the Chamber’s point of view we are very happy to see the way the budget has gone. It is aimed at keeping people here; it is aimed at keeping people in jobs, and that has a knock on effect. You have infrastructure programs and quite a large amount, or there is a considerable amount of money going into the Power and Water upgrading of their facilities and those sorts of things, which can only be applauded from our point of view. But you know, there will be money going into roads, there will be money going into the port, there will be money going into schools, there will be money going into remote housing, all of those things are good things to see.
For the Leader of the Opposition to criticise us for going into deficit, he has to articulate what areas of government expenditure he would cut to the tune of $268m to bring the budget back into surplus. Chris Young, when he was asked about the level of debt the government has accumulated, stated:
- I think it is a good type of debt, I mean, we can’t reiterate enough the fact that it is the roads, the rail, the airports and the ports that are sort of, and then power and water, those are the infrastructure things that business needs, it makes it easier to do business.
The Leader of the Opposition would have to take on the business community head first with a reckless strategy to slash government expenditure. It cannot be done without axing, if not thousands of public sector workers, thousands of jobs in the private sector, where the opposition would pull back on the capital works program to make their savings targets articulated today. The position the Leader of the Opposition has taken is totally nonsensical. He had a chance to step up, show leadership and show he had the courage of his convictions in his statements on the budget position of government to take the tough decisions. All he did today was spend more money.
There was no articulated plan for savings the Leader of the Opposition offered. He certainly has a housing fund we know would blow at least a $750m to $800m hole further into the budget. He talked about forming committees which would cost money. He had a super ghetto plan for public housing tenants which would cost tens of millions of dollars, yet he railed against going into deficit country. He completely missed the point in outlining an alternate government response and strategy to the unprecedented collapse we have seen in company taxes and consumption across Australia which has led to a significant decline in the GST pool.
I am trying to understand why the Country Liberal Party hates public servants so much. It is clear from everything said the CLP, if they took control of government, would radically attack the public service, slash jobs and reduce agency budgets in a way that would seriously impact on service delivery.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Not true.
Mr HENDERSON: I pick up on the member for Katherine because I clearly heard his interjection in Question Time yesterday where he stated under Labor the public service was bloated …
Mr Westra van Holthe: That is right. How many extra public servants have been employed since you started?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … and the CLP would deliver an efficient public service. He stated under Labor the public service was bloated, and the CLP would create an efficient public service. That is a code for slashing jobs - an absolute code for slashing jobs. They are cowards as a political party because they have failed to articulate where the cuts would come from. You cannot return the budget to surplus unless you radically slash expenditure or, radically increase taxes. That is the way it works, and they have taken the cowards’ way out by not articulating what their response would be.
The shadow Treasurer has a holy grail of budget surpluses come what may, and woe betide any public servant who stands between him and his budget surplus. I have been a minister and Chief Minister for almost nine years now, and in that time I have seen increasing attacks on public servants from the CLP. I cannot understand why. In the time I have been in government, I have seen the effort, the level of work and the passion public servants show for their jobs. They believe in providing the government of the day, no matter who that is, with professional advice, and they accept government makes decisions they do not always agree with, but they implement those decisions. Our public servants, by and large, do a magnificent job across the Territory, and many of them work extraordinary hours in supporting and implementing government policy.
I have seen the efforts of front-line fire fighters, police, nurses, teachers and many other professionals, and the dedication of health professionals doing their job. I see policy staff travelling and working extensive hours to meet the demands of the COAG process and an active federal government. I see chief executives and senior management who rarely have a week off. The budget delivered yesterday by the Treasurer is an effort of work many would not understand. Treasury officers, in the lead-up to the budget, work seven days a week and many hours a day for literally months on end to produce the budget.
On top of that, this year we have major health reform, COAG and the Henry Taxation Review to cope with. The CLP would slash at the heart of all that. They would slash and burn.
Yesterday in Question Time, the CLP shadow Treasurer focused his attack on government spending. Today, the Leader of the Opposition echoes that attack. They have signalled again and again their desire to slash the budget, slash spending, but they will not identify where. You cannot pursue the holy grail of a balanced budget, or a surplus budget, without identifying the costs
Well, we have some clues. We know exactly how they are going to do it; they told us at the start of the 2008 election. In their public sector policy issued in the 2008 election, the CLP said:
- … an incoming Country Liberals government will seek an immediate reduction of 75 to 80 officers at the executive contract level …
The opposition has said, in their response to the first report of the Council of Territory Cooperation, they would abolish the Department of Local Government. My advice from the minister’s office is if you took the local government part of Local Government, 70 to 80 jobs would be slashed; would be gone. Again, those are people with families, with mortgages, people who have loans to service and, contemptuously, at the flick of a pen, the opposition say that is another 75 to 80 jobs. We talk about the two areas they have explicitly said, but are trying to hide from it, they would sack staff. That is 150 to 160 people.
If they were to return the budget to surplus over the forward estimates, $4.8bn equates to 6000 jobs across the public service. That means they have to find another 5840 or 5850 jobs to go. They have identified 150 or 160. To bring the budget back into surplus over forward estimates, and/or in conjunction with that, they have to identify what additional tax measures they would put in place to raise that revenue, or what capital projects would they abandon.
We have a $1.8bn capital works project. If they abolished the entire capital works program this year, they would still have to find another $3bn. The entire capital works program $1.8bn – 3600 jobs, gone from the economy, and they are still nowhere near putting the budget back into balance over the forward estimates.
One in three public servants should be shaking in their shoes between now and the next election, wondering who is in the gun, who is in the firing line, who will lose their job if the Country Liberals hold the Treasury benches at the next election. It is not as simple as saying: ‘I am going to cut jobs. I am going to close my eyes, and I am going to hope for a better future for the Northern Territory’. That is not the way it works, Leader of the Opposition; you have to spell out a better plan. You need a better plan than, in the light of the aftermath of the global financial crisis, having some half-baked plan about building a super ghetto to house recalcitrant tenants in public housing - we know there are problems which need to be better dealt with - a half baked plan for a super ghetto with some razor wire to keep marginalised people locked away from the rest of society, or to talk about forming some committee to fast-track land release across the Northern Territory.
That was the extent of the opposition’s budget reply today. They will return the budget to balance, they will return the budget to surplus, but they will not articulate how they are going to do that. These are the challenges for the Leader of the Opposition.
There is a clear divide between the Labor government and the CLP on the management of the budget and the running of the public service. The CLP left a deficit of $130m when they lost office, despite their budget papers predicting a budget deficit of $28m. It was $130m for presentation purposes only. They also left a nett debt to revenue ratio of 61% and a nett financial liabilities to revenue ratio of 133%. The Territory was virtually bankrupt. People were leaving the Territory in droves. The only industry showing any growth was the furniture removal business, and house prices were collapsing. That is the economy we inherited in 2001. Today, we have heavy investment in both services and infrastructure and, with the budget focused on insulating the Territory from the ongoing impacts of the world’s worst crisis since the 1930s, we are providing a nett debt ratio of 26% and a nett financial liabilities revenue of 89%.
If you compare the Territory government’s position with other states, we are in a much better position than most states in the Commonwealth. But, no, the CLP does not acknowledge that; they would crash headlong into sacking thousands of Territorians. That is a stark difference, and a real picture of debt and deficit. We have the proven track record and capacity to manage this through. Not only have we had the GFC, we have also had a review of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which has seen a reduction in our share of the pool.
The outcomes announced in the Treasurer’s speech show what can be achieved with good management. We have achieved this without slashing the public service, or services, or ratchet up taxes, as proposed by the CLP. It is very clear the CLP cannot be trusted with the public service.
I turn to my departmental responsibilities of Chief Minister, and Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The Department of the Chief Minister is the principal central agency, and provides the major coordination point for the implementation of government policy. It ensures government priorities are reflected in policy, and are implemented effectively by the public sector.
The Department of the Chief Minister has several key responsibilities in addition to this coordination role. In 2010-11, the department will provide a focus on the implementation of the Territory 2030 plan, the principal strategy document of the government. This budget is the first down payment of implementing that plan. Contained within my department is a unit which ensures the priorities are being achieved, and the subcommittee of Cabinet is kept up to date on all matters. Underpinning the themes outlined in 2030 are 10 key strategies, which have already been announced. These include A Working Future - $980m committed to A Working Future strategy in the budget this year; a massive boost to infrastructure and improving the lives of people in remote parts of the Northern Territory; Greening the Territory, A Smart Territory, Housing the Territory, A Safe Territory, and others. These core strategies are well funded in Budget 2010-11.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition where he would find savings in each of these strategy areas? Which programs would you cut? How big an axe would you take to the $980m which has been allocated to A Working Future strategy?
I would like to talk about the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. The Department of the Chief Minister also coordinates and monitors the provision of services and programs to improve outcomes for Indigenous residents and visitors in Alice Springs. In 1200-11, the joint Territory and Commonwealth government-funded Alice Springs Transformation Plan will invest $17.5m to enhance social support services and implement measures to reduce homelessness. This investment of additional funds is the factor behind the increased expenditure and policy coordination within the Chief Minister’s Department. I am convinced this project will transform Alice Springs, and will change the lives of many people for many years. It is a massive investment in the community, and will see substantial change to the future of Alice Springs.
The Chief Minister’s agency also houses the Major Projects Unit, with $2.7m allocated this year. The major projects people do a great job for the Territory, being at the forefront of efforts to attract major business investments to our community.
The government is providing strong support to our vibrant multicultural community in 2010-11. The government will provide support for projects which promote cultural and linguistic diversity in the Territory through grants under the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program, with an allocation of $792 000 - maybe they will slash that budget allocation – and operational assistance to migrant and ethnic community organisations, including the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory, and the Multicultural Community Services of Central Australia.
The Charles See Kee Awards, which recognise and celebrate people, organisations and initiatives that have made outstanding contributions towards advancing multiculturalism and counteracting racism in the Northern Territory - a further $250 000 will be allocated under the Ethnic Communities Facility Development Fund Program. Members will be aware, under this program, ethnic communities can access funding for repairs and upgrades to their premises. Maybe that is a simple stroke of the pen; you can find $250 000 there, Leader of the Opposition, for the $4.8bn-worth of savings you have promised to find.
A total of $20 000 will also be made available for projects under the National Action Plan to build social cohesion, harmony and security. Previous funding under the National Action Plan has assisted the Islamic community in the Northern Territory to hold their Islamic Awareness Week, and similar projects.
The Darwin Waterfront Project, another project the CLP despised and campaigned against, has transformed 25 ha of industrial wasteland into a new playground for the community and businesses. Water recreation through the wave pool and lagoon, seaside promenades, parklands, hotels and restaurants are all fantastic aspects of the precinct, and have proven popular with Territory families and visitors. They have also provided a massive stimulus boost to our economy. A project of a couple of hundred million dollars worth of taxpayer investment leveraged nearly $800m worth of private sector investment, again, a massive stimulus to our economy.
The Darwin Convention Centre has been a tremendous success since opening, and interest in hosting national conferences and events has been increasing; $118m is allocated in 2010-11.
The Northern Territory Major Events Company is a government-owned company. The company continues to attract, develop and support special events that provide economic benefits, tourism, media and social enhancement.
My government is committed to maintaining the Territory as one the best places to live in Australia, and a diverse range of events and activities are a vital part of our commitment to the community. I had the Leader of the Opposition attack me for supporting Elton John coming to the Northern Territory. Not only would he slash thousands of jobs across the public sector or ratchet up taxes, you would not be able to have any fun in the Territory either. The promoters of these concerts will knock on the door: ‘Mr Mills, have we got a fantastic concert for you, but we need a little support to cover the increased transport cost to bring it to the Northern Territory. Elton John is very keen to come to the Northern Territory but we need support to cover the costs of bringing all the gear here’. The Leader of the Opposition will say: ‘Oh no, no, we are not allowed to have any fun in the Northern Territory. We cannot possibly support bringing big name acts to the Territory people would probably never have a chance to see. We are not going to have any fun, not have any big name acts coming to the Northern Territory, this is all a no, no. We are going to keep this budget in balance’.
I do not believe it. I cannot believe if he was Chief Minister and had an opportunity to bring Elton John to the Territory he would turn him away, and heaven help him if he did, if it got out the Chief Minister had said no to Elton John coming to the Territory. If there is an opportunity to see fantastic sporting events, fantastic concerts, the government of the day, whether it is a CLP government or the Territory government - it is not a huge amount of money, and people have fun and a great experience.
The team at Major Events do a magnificent job. They not only support events in Darwin, they support the Alice Springs Masters Games, the Arafura Games, the Territory Sports Awards, the Finke Desert Race, the V8 Supercars, which was voted as best round of the Championship series in 2008, the Barkly Muster and Goldrush at Tennant Creek, BassintheGrass, the Hottest 7’s Rugby tournament, the Mountain Bike Challenge in Alice Springs, and the Global Green Challenge, formerly the World Solar Car Challenge.
These events are across the Northern Territory and tens of thousands of Territorians enjoy them. Whilst I am Chief Minister, if I have the opportunity to bring big names to the Territory for everyone to enjoy, I will certainly do so. We will not be a Mr Kill Joy and say: ‘Sorry, Elton John, we do not think we are going to provide you with support to come to the Territory’.
Turning to Police, Fire and Emergency Services, as members would be aware; the government has made a clear and strong commitment to bolstering the resources of Police, Fire and Emergency Services over a number of years. This year, a budget of $310m is designed to continue that strong support. Members need to understand how rundown the resources of our police force were when we came to office. They did not have the numbers or the tools to do their job, they struggled and were demoralised. This Labor government has bolstered police numbers by an extra 399, including Themis police officers, since 2002. This Labor government has introduced new laws giving police the tools to do their job. This Labor government modernised our police equipment and communications, and made better use of technology such as CCTV.
I am very proud of the efforts of this government, and it is reflected in this budget. I am very proud of the efforts of our Police Force, our Fire Service officers, our Emergency Service officers and volunteers across the Northern Territory. It was great to have the opportunity to buy a few firies a beer at the May Day concert to say thank you. Our police officers were there in uniform, so they missed out. I am proud of the wonderful work our Fire Service officers do, in difficult circumstances, across the Territory. Budget 2010-11 delivers record spending for new and upgraded police stations with …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the Chief Minister be given a 10 minute extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, parliamentary colleagues. Budget 2010-11 delivers record spending for new and upgraded police stations, with $18.8m to build police stations and officer accommodation at Alpara and Imanpa supporting work in future; $3.7m to upgrade the Tennant Creek police station, and design work to commence on the new police station at Alice Springs and the Greatorex Building.
This government remains committed to neighbourhood policing - seeing police on the beat. That is why we are investing in Police Beats throughout the major shopping areas - that is where they are going to find $6m; they are going to close the Police Beats. Budget 2010-11 funds a further $6m to complete and maintain Police Beats in Alice Springs, Casuarina, Palmerston, Karama, Parap and Nightcliff. That is where they will find another $6m, so we have savings of around $166m out of the $4.8bn they need to find. We need to keep digging to find those savings. Improving remote policing - there is now a greater police presence in more remote communities than ever before. Budget 2010-11 delivers $30.6m for police in remote communities, including $27.1m for policing in 18 remote communities, a key part of A Working Future; and $2.08m to reduce substance abuse.
The government remains committed to cracking down on alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour, and this is reflected in Budget 2010-11. While some of these areas are outside my immediate portfolios, I believe it is worth noting this year we will fund $1.57m for day and night patrols and a public hotline; $1.44m for CCTV monitoring in the Greater Darwin Area, continued responsible drinking education campaigns; a stronger alcohol court to deal with problem drinkers; and $0.37m for the Palmerston Information and Referrals Office to continue antisocial behaviour intervention and care management services.
Under the CLP’s plan to sell more grog in Alice Springs there may be some revenue through increased payroll tax receipts as employers have to put more people on to sell grog; but the CLP’s plans to tackle antisocial behaviour and alcohol-related violence cannot be taken seriously until they remove that policy.
Budget 2010-11 provides an extra $3.75m to improve Fire and Emergency Services, including $1.49m to expand community fire awareness and education. Those people do a magnificent job with the awareness programs throughout the community. An extra $1.06m to continue expanding Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Services, including upgrades and replacement of fire and rescue truck. Maybe that is where they could find another $1m – do not replace those fire and rescue trucks – that is $1m saved. I have saved them $167m so far. $200 000 for an extra fire fighter in Jabiru, and $1m boost per annum as part of A Working Future to expand Fire and Emergency Services in our growth towns. That is a specific project we are undertaking. There is another $1m; that is $168m out of $4.8bn worth of savings that could be offered up in a CLP plan. However, I conclude as I began.
This budget is about providing for Territory families today, and investing in the future of the Territory tomorrow. It was a deliberate decision to go into deficit to protect jobs. Without jobs people, in the most part, leave the Territory to return south and the economy loses capacity. As a result, consumption goes down, and the whole economic picture is one of spiralling decline. As Chief Minister, my government will not deliberately have a strategy which would see people thrown out of work for the sake of going into deficit for a few years, which is entirely sustainable, responsible, and supported by the business community.
I am very keen to hear, in response to the budget, the shadow ministers offer in their portfolios, where they would make the cuts. That is what I really want to hear. I want to hear them say: ‘We have a shadow Cabinet responsibility. The boss has said we are going to return the budget to balance or surplus; we need to find, over the forward estimates, $4.8bn worth of savings’. There is the challenge! If they are serious in attacking the government on the deficit and debt position, there is the challenge. The shadow ministers need to, as we do as ministers from time to time around the Cabinet table, come back with savings. You need to come up with $4.8bn worth of savings over the forward estimates otherwise no one will take you seriously. No one will take you seriously. I have been able to find, in the 30-odd minutes I have been on my feet, through my portfolio areas, $166m to contribute. It is certainly not savings I would offer up, because I believe all that expenditure is warranted; it protects jobs and delivers services for Territory families, so we decided to go into deficit.
I have given you a $166m head start, and you have $4.8bn to find over the rest of this debate. Otherwise, the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply speech stands for absolutely nothing. It shows he is not fit to lead; he has no plans for saving jobs in the Territory, and no plans to create jobs in the Northern Territory. He only has plans for the holy grail of a balanced budget.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Treasurer on her budget, and I look forward to the contribution from members opposite as to where they would find $4.8bn worth of savings, or tax increases, to put the budget back into balance over the forward estimates.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is usual in these appropriation debates we go one-on-one; obviously the opposition does not have anything to say! They have to find their savings. They are probably opening the piggy banks as we speak.
I support this bill in my capacity as Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Public and Affordable Housing, and Minister for Public Employment. Budget 2010-11 is about delivering for Territory families and investing in the growth of the Territory. It is a budget which focuses on the core priorities of this government; to grow our economy, to create jobs, and ensure the Territory remains a great place to live.
I will start with my portfolio of Education because, as outlined in our Territory 2030 strategic plan, education is at the core of improving our educational and social outcomes. We have employed an extra 330 teachers since 2002. We have a huge infrastructure program under way, and we are focused on improving education in the bush, something the CLP ignored. Not a single Indigenous child finished Year 12 in their home community under the CLP. We are putting more teachers into schools, and building new schools in these communities. Budget 2010-11 delivers a record $886m for education and training to support families and invest in the growth of the Territory. This includes a $12m injection for an extra 105 teachers and 42 support staff. Despite what the CLP claim, we will not be taking those jobs from elsewhere in the public service to maintain our employee cap.
We have always said there is a need for frontline employees such as teachers, nurses, and doctors, and we will ensure the demand is met in those very important areas. This government values our teacher workforce, and we will spend $2.8m to establish an institute for school leadership, learning, and development to provide principals and teachers with professional development opportunities and support. This includes existing funding of $800 000.
Budget 2010-11 provides $213m to build better schools, continuing this government’s commitment to upgrade every government primary and group school over four years. Schools receiving funding in Budget 2010-11 include: $6.8m to upgrade the Acacia, Henbury and Nemarluk special schools; $6.4m to upgrade Centralian Middle School in Gillen and establish a youth hub at ANZAC Hill; $5m for new student facilities at Casuarina Senior College; $1m to upgrade Sanderson Middle School; 21 schools to receive $300 000 each for important upgrades, and to improve facilities for students and staff.
Work is continuing on the $54.5m Rosebery Primary and Middle Schools in Palmerston, which will cater for 1450 students when they open at the beginning of the next school year. Budget 2010-11 provides an additional $14.1m, which is part of the $13.1m in the DET budget, for staff and operational expenses associated with Rosebery schools, including $1m for buses for students - that is the $1m in the Planning and Infrastructure budget - the remainder comes within the DET budget; 60 additional teachers, a team of principals and assistant principals, and 20 support staff; $6.8m for furniture and fit-out, computers and related infrastructure and new resources and materials. Also in Palmerston, an additional $800 000 is provided to expand and remodel the positive learning centre which works to re-engage students with high-level behavioural issues.
This government is providing $2.4m over four years to establish five Centres of Excellence in Territory senior schools, which includes existing funding of $900 000 to deliver specialist academic courses for high achieving students. The first two centres to be established in 2010 will be a science centre of excellence at Darwin High School, and a centre for health sciences at Casuarina Senior College.
Budget 2010-11 continues to support Territory families with the very popular back-to-school vouchers. Funding of $3.1m will see the continuation of $75 vouchers to parents of every Territory school-age student to help with the cost of essential school items.
__________________
Tabled Paper
Pairing Arrangement between Member for Arnhem and Member for Araluen
Tabled Paper
Pairing Arrangement between Member for Arnhem and Member for Araluen
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs between the member for Arnhem and the member for Araluen for the period from 4 pm today until the close of this sitting day. It is signed by both the Government and Opposition Whips.
__________________
Dr BURNS: As mentioned earlier, the Territory government continues to focus on closing the gap of Indigenous disadvantage. Budget 2010-11 continues to roll out our plan to improve outcomes in the bush by providing funding to Indigenous communities under our A Working Future strategy. Schools to receive upgrades include: $17.6m from the Commonwealth to build children and family centres at Yuendumu, Gunbalanya, Maningrida and Ngukurr; $2m to upgrade Yirrkala school; $1.25m for Maningrida; $1.25m for Ntaria; $500 000 for Elliott; $2m for upgrades to six learning centres; and $400 000 for additional student counsellor office space.
With enormous increases in our participation rates with the 2009 NAPLAN testing, particularly by our Indigenous students in very remote communities, it was expected the results might be affected. We found the 2009 results very encouraging, and included some excellent highlights of Years 3 and 5 reading, and Years 5 and 9 numeracy, in particular. Boosting school attendance is a critical factor in improving results. There is no quick fix, however, we have more teachers and schools than ever to improve our education outcomes.
NAPLAN and the My School website have highlighted very remote schools that are achieving, such as Ntaria, and we are working to replicate practices and programs to achieve similar results in other remote schools. Unlike the CLP members who rubbish our Indigenous NAPLAN results, we know we can use these results to improve our educational outcomes. The CLP did not mention Indigenous students and ways to help them in their recently-announced education policy. I notice an attempt at defence from the member for Blain, the Opposition Leader. How does he explain ignoring Indigenous students and early childhood? That is an identified crucial issue. It has been identified by numerous studies, and it was a very poor attempt on his part to regain some ground in a massive oversight as the shadow Education minister.
However, I digress. I acknowledge there is a long way to go, but we are a government committed to making a change. Budget 2001-11 continues to provide funding to improve educational and training outcomes for Indigenous Territorians. It provides an additional $5.3m to enhance education and training programs in Territory growth towns; $3.5m to establish a comprehensive youth pathway service within and beyond schools; $3.6m for 20 virtual early childhood integrated service hubs and families as first teachers programs in communities. This is the government’s focus in our remote communities for early childhood.
Once again, I draw attention to the fact the Leader of the Opposition, in his education policy, completely ignored Indigenous students and early childhood development and programs. $2.5m for mobile preschools; an additional $1.2m for eight teachers in remote communities; $1.1m for child protection in schools; $900 000 for additional counsellors - an increase of eight positions since 2006-07, and an additional two since 2009-10; $200 000 for children’s services regulation; $2.2m for a going-to-school enrolment and attendance strategy, including the implementation of family responsibility agreements, funded with an additional $1.1m from 2009-10; $2.3m for student engagement programs such as Clontarf Football Academy, which will expand to a total of 11 sites, and Sporting Chance, will be include six sites; $3.1m to establish a 3 pm to 9 pm after school Indigenous language and culture initiative in very remote community schools; $1.1m for 16 full-time equivalent assistant teacher positions in the NT public sector to provide employment opportunities for local Indigenous people; $600 000 for IT expansion in remote communities; and, $120 000 for two Indigenous teacher scholarships.
Territory education is benefiting significantly from a cooperative approach with the Australian government. Leveraging Commonwealth funding of $12.4m in the 2010-11 year under the Smarter Schools Education National Partnership provides $700 000 for the establishment of a literacy and numeracy task force; $1.5m for English as a Second Language training and support for teachers; $1.5m to expand the At School pilot, using virtual schooling as a real time quality learning alternative for senior secondary students; $400 000 to establish the Quality Remote Teaching Service Unit to ensure very remote Indigenous schools are adequately staffed with quality teachers and leaders committed to providing quality education; $1.9m to consolidate and expand training and development pathways for Indigenous educators; $250 000 to pilot the use of VET and work experience programs for students in the middle years of schooling, especially Indigenous young men.
The Australian government provides the Territory with $44.7m from National Partnerships for the Productivity Places program. Combined with the Territory’s contribution of $1.3m, we were able to upgrade the skills of existing workers and provide access to qualifications for the job seekers. In particular, $2.6m to implement training programs in communities that connect Indigenous Territorians to real and sustainable local employment opportunities; the continuation of $1m a year for 10 000 apprentices and trainee commencements between 2009-12; work ready funding of $900 000 to better prepare young Territorians for apprenticeships and traineeships.
The Education budget of $886m puts in place key initiatives aligned to the Department of Education and Training’s Strategic Plan 2009-12. It supports Territory families by ensuring our schools are well resourced, while investing in the growth of the Territory through increased infrastructural works.
I move to my portfolio area of Public and Affordable Housing. The government Is releasing land five times faster than before, and Budget 2010-11 will provide more public housing and help more Territory families to either find a place to live of their own, or own their own home. In Palmerston, we will house 15 000 people over the next five years. This budget provides $32m for land services. The Northern Territory is experiencing strong economic and population growth, and this has driven up our housing market. We have mandated 15% of new land releases be set aside for affordable and public housing. We are also providing financial assistance for those Territorians who need extra help to buy a home. We are building the capacity of the non-government sector to be involved in housing solutions for Territorians in need, while continuing to improve access to housing for remote Territorians.
Budget 2010-11 delivers a record $695m for housing and accommodation. $49m of new funding over three years will deliver 150 new homes, including three seniors’ villages at Larapinta, Johnston and Malak, and 59 one and two-bedroom dwellings.
As part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, $32m will deliver 186 new units for accommodation in Darwin and Alice Springs; public, affordable and managed accommodation with the construction of 141 dwellings to be completed in the 2010-11 financial year. This is part of this government’s target of 200 dwellings either completed or under construction by the end of this calendar year.
An additional $15.2m will be rolled out for public housing repairs and maintenance, and a further $15.1m will be used to refurbish existing public housing dwellings. $4m will continue our ongoing investment in redeveloping older style complexes across the region, and $1.2m will be invested in four new homes for homeless people. Under the Social Housing National Partnership Agreement, $4.2m has been allocated to construct the Bellamack seniors’ village, providing 40 one and two-bedroom dwellings for seniors. Work is expected to begin shortly.
In the Wirrina development of Parap, $13.5m has been set aside to purchase 45 units for social housing, 35 units for affordable housing, and 10 public housing units for seniors. Construction is expected to be completed by June 2012.
Budget 2010-11 delivers tax cuts which will save first homebuyers up to $26 720; senior Territorians who qualify, $8500, and Principal Place of Residence buyers, $3500 when buying a home. The stamp duty exemption for first homebuyers increases from the first $385 000 to $540 000, saving homebuyers up to $26 730.
This government is introducing a new concession to senior Territorians and pensioner and carer concession cardholders, reducing stamp duty by $8500. In addition, the Principal Place of Resident Rebate has increased from $2500 to $3500.
Budget 2010-11 makes it easier for Territorians on low-and-middle incomes to buy their own home through the Territory government’s home loan program Homestart NT. Budget 2010-11 increases Homestart NT purchase price caps and income limits across the Territory, providing Territorians with access to 40% of the market, with mortgage repayments at no more than 30% of their income. I will say that again for members opposite: it is all about access to 40% of the market with mortgage repayments at no more than 30% of their income. That is the design of Homestart NT purchase price caps. Those caps are based on data from house and unit sales across the Territory. Home purchase price caps have been lifted by $55 000 in Darwin and Palmerston, $18 000 in Katherine, $5000 in Tennant Creek, and $85 000 in Alice Springs. I had better check that. I think it is $85 000, however, I will confirm it later.
This scheme is fully costed, unlike the CLP’s appropriately titled ‘Living the Dream’ home purchase policy. Their policy commits Territorians to a $780m black hole which will send property and rent prices through the roof; it will cost jobs. The CLP must tell Territorians what services are going to miss out to fund this policy. Will it be teachers, doctors, or public servants? We know they have already targeted public service jobs.
What I said previously was correct. In Alice Springs there has been an $85 000 increase from $300 000 to $385 000. I clarify that point.
In most jurisdictions, priority housing needs are met by the community sector. In the Northern Territory, housing and accommodation services provided by the non-government sector are limited. Budget 2010-11 will continue to provide opportunities for NGOs to build capacity in this area. The Commonwealth and Territory governments are committed to delivering new supported and managed accommodation options across the Territory. Budget 2010-11 delivers $2.7m to operate five new short-term accommodation facilities in Alice Springs and Darwin. This includes the $7.9m Percy Court transitional village project in Alice Springs which will house up to 79 people in 28 units. Also in Alice Springs, the $3.8m short-term accommodation facility at Bath Street Lodge will have a focus on renal dialysis patients, and cater for up to 40 visitors at any one time.
A $1.9m domestic violence and crisis transitional accommodation program in Malak will provide eight self-contained units accommodating up to 26 people.
Short-term visitor accommodation is also to be provided at the Alice Springs Accommodation Park. The $6.6m construction project is being funded under the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. The facility will offer up to 150 beds for short-stay visitors.
The $1.6m Catherine Booth House at Stuart Park will provide short-term accommodation and will be operated by the Salvation Army.
In addition to these facilities, an $8.1m transitional housing village is also under construction at Crerar Road, Berrimah, and will be operated by a non-government provider. This government has committed funding of $1.2m a year to support the facility, which will provide training in urban living skills for residents to move into conventional public or private housing.
Under the Street to Home initiative, Budget 2010-11 provides more than $2m to the non-government sector for projects to address homelessness.
Other smaller projects include: funding of $800 000 to the St Vincent de Paul Society to add 10 more beds to its facility at Coconut Grove for temporary accommodation for adult males, funding of $200 000 to the Mental Health Association of Central Australia for four beds in a hostel, and two one-bedroom units for people at risk of becoming homeless due to mental illness; funding of $45 000 to the Salvation Army Red Shield Hostel for a part-time case worker to work with clients at the hostel, and as an outreach program; funding of $900 000 for the YMCA to repair and upgrade the Doctors Gully Hostel. The project ensures an existing 63 rooms, which were likely to close, remain open, and makes a further 15 rooms available, plus a two-bedroom flat and a three-bedroom house.
As mentioned earlier, this government is committed to turning around Indigenous disadvantage. Budget 2010-11 continues to deliver on our remote commitments with joint Commonwealth and Territory funding of $354m to be rolled out this financial year as part of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program.
I listened with interest to the Leader of the Opposition comments on SIHIP in his budget reply. What he conveniently forgets, and wants to forget, is this is a five-year program which has a target of 750 new houses, 230 rebuilds and 2500 refurbishments. We will deliver on those commitments. It is all right to say: ‘Oh, in the first year you have done this or that, or have not done this or that’. This is a five-year program; one of the biggest infrastructure programs in remote Australia, if not the biggest, with the biggest tranche of spending in Indigenous housing ever in Australia. It needs to be recognised as such.
The Leader of the Opposition, and some of the members opposite, try to cause trouble with this program. The only way they are going to be quiet is when they see, as I have done, houses being built all over the Territory, and for us to achieve the targets mentioned over the five years of the project. That is what I am saying to the opposition.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I am glad I was not holding my breath waiting for the SIHIP houses.
Dr BURNS: Yes, whatever.
Budget 2010-11 continues to deliver on our remote commitments. As mentioned, under the Remote Indigenous Housing National Partnership Agreement, $1.7bn is available over 10 years to substantially increase public housing stocks in our Territory growth towns, and improve the quality of housing across a vast number of remote communities.
By the end of the year, 150 new homes and 1000 refurbishments and rebuilds will be completed. As of 13 April, 155 refurbishments and rebuilds were complete, and 115 were under way, seven new houses have been completed, and another 80 are under way coming into the Dry Season.
Budget 2010-11 will see the establishment of the Territory’s first affordable housing rental company to provide rental housing for low to middle income earners at below market rent. Expressions of interest have now closed, and submissions from interested proponents are under consideration. Budget 2010-11 includes additional funding for government employee housing, with $3.8m for additional staff accommodation at Gove District Hospital; $7.8m for teacher housing as part of the Australian government’s 200 extra teachers initiative; and $15.3m to construct 15 new and upgrade 60 existing government employee houses in remote communities.
This government is fully committed to achieving the vision in our Territory 2030 strategic plan that the Territory offers affordable and appropriate housing to meet the varying needs of Territorians. It is a commitment we are meeting.
I now turn to the third area of my responsibility, which is Public Employment, with the relevant agency being the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. In 2010-11, the budget for OCPE is $7.472m, a small reduction of $113 000 on the 2009-10 appropriation. This small reduction reflects the government’s desire for all agents to operate efficiently while, at the same time, ensuring we have a contemporary public service. Strategic issues facing OCPE in 2010-11 include: negotiating the new Northern Territory Public Service workplace agreements in line with the Northern Territory Public Service wages policy; finalising a review of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and subordinate legislation; implementing and evaluating policies and practices which emphasise equity, diversity and achievement of the work/life balance; developing strategies to include employment and career outcomes for Indigenous people in the public service; developing and implementing responses for both the public and private sectors in relation to the Commonwealth’s industrial relations legislation; and strengthening the merit principle for promotions and new employment.
The 2010-11 Budget will allow the commissioner to undertake his work agenda for the year, which includes: implementing the review of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act; implementing the Workforce Planning Framework that improves the quality, range, and timeliness of employee data; implementing the revised Indigenous Employment and Career Development Strategy 2010-12; negotiating five new enterprise agreements covering general employees, teachers and educators, Power and Water employees, fire fighters and medical officers.
It is going to be a very interesting year preparing the parameters for the negotiation of six new enterprise agreements in 2011-12, covering police, nurses, Port Corporation employees, marine pilots, dentists and prison officers. Developing and implementing a framework for innovation recognition and reward; developing a capability and leadership framework; formulating a service-wide response to the findings of the 2009 NTPS Employee Survey. That is much work.
It is clear from my remarks today this is a budget strongly focused on enhancing the working conditions of Territorians and improving the lives of Territory families. It is a budget which invests in our future and addresses the aims of this government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Treasurer and the Chief Minister for delivering a sustainable and responsible fiscal plan for 2010-11. I commend the Budget to the House.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): It is a great budget, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I believe the silence from the other side is recognition of that.
Budget 2010-11 delivers now for families and invests in the future of the Northern Territory. The Henderson government will continue to support Territory businesses by delivering $45m in Budget 2010-11 to make it easier to do business.
Budget 2010-11 provides funding for the Henderson government’s next generation jobs plan, Jobs NT 2010-2012. Jobs NT includes initiatives to help Territory businesses develop skilled workforces to meet the demands of growth now and into the future. The Henderson government’s jobs plan will support our growing economy and help deliver more than 10 000 apprenticeships and traineeships since 2003. Over this time, the Territory has experienced the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded, and economic growth rates which have outstripped most other jurisdictions in Australia.
Our government recognises a changing economic environment presents new challenges for businesses, including attracting and retaining skilled workers. Budget 2010-11 delivers an extra $11m over three years as part of Jobs NT by providing $5m more for Indigenous employment programs, including $1.3m for the entry-level public sector program, $3.6m for public sector apprenticeships and traineeships, with a focus on the Territory growth towns, including the introduction of a sector-wide, school-based apprenticeship program; a further $2.3m to continue incentives to employ apprentices and trainees in skilled shortage areas, or persons from a disadvantaged background. A further $4.7m will deliver targeted and flexible training connected to local remote community jobs.
In addition, Budget 2010-11 will provide $6m, with funding assistance from the Australian government through the Productivity Places Program National Partnership Agreement, for additional training places, reducing skill shortages in national priority industries and occupations. In addition, Work Wear, Work Gear and Work Ready programs continue in Budget 2010-11, with an additional $2.15m. More than 10 000 new apprentice and trainee jobs have commenced with the support of Territory government initiatives, a 57% increase since 2001. While it is important to invest in the future by developing the skills of Territorians, the Henderson government also recognises the need to look both interstate and overseas to source skilled workers to deliver now for the Territory.
The Henderson government is committed to making it easier to do business in the Territory by including $4.8m to promote business and industry development, and provide business with assistance in responding to changing economic conditions, including through the Territory Business Centre and the two other programs we have - Territory Business Growth and Business Upskills. $1.4m will go towards developing a one-stop online service for registration services for Territory businesses.
Budget 2010-11 includes initiatives to develop Territory industry, including the minerals and pastoral industries. This will see a $15.3m to boost mineral exploration, including increased geophysical surveys; $5.4m to encourage major economic development projects, and promote Asian relations and trade development; $790 000 to support the pastoral industry to develop Indigenous pastoral enterprises with the live cattle overseas export market.
Budget 2010-11 continues the Henderson government’s commitment to supporting business by cutting expenses. The Territory has the most competitive payroll tax system for small to medium- sized businesses in the country. Budget 2010-11 will continue to deliver benefits for these businesses. Our government’s tax reform strategy has delivered savings of $291m for small to medium-sized businesses since we came to government in 2001.
The Henderson government recognises the value of investing in the Territory’s future through its range of business programs. Territory business is able to take advantage of initiatives which assist them in the areas of professional and business development services, training, support, mentoring and funding programs. This initiative will include $2.58m for promoting business and industry development and growth, and providing business with assistance in responding to the challenges of current and anticipated economic conditions through the Business Upskills Program, the Territory Business Growth Program, the Territory Business Centres and October Business Month.
The Business Support Division of the Department of Business and Employment provides many services to the business community to help them continue to operate and grow their business and employ more Territorians. Services provided include training and information for new starters and established businesses through the Getting Started in Business Program, which includes a whole range of workshops. These workshops cover the basic necessities for starting a business, and lead into the Territory Business Upskills Program for the enhancement of management skills to strengthen business.
Other programs include the Territory Business Growth Program, which helps businesses develop formal business plans to provide a clear path forward and generate economic benefits for the Territory and secure employment for Territorians. The Henderson government’s Procurement Liaison Program assists businesses to address any concerns they have with the government’s procurement system, which was simplified last year to cut the red tape for private industry to access government contracts.
The delivery of business information and services across the Territory is provided through the Territory Business Centre, located in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. $1.4m in capital funding has been allocated to enhance the Territory’s national business online services. These are requirements aimed at developing a one-stop online service for Territory businesses to organise the necessary business registrations, business licenses, and to access other Australian and Northern Territory government’s services.
We have $0.4m trade support scheme, which currently assists approximately 70 Territory businesses per annum to market their goods and services to international markets. Business types include Indigenous art, mining support, tourism, cattle producers, and educational services.
The Henderson government also wants to ensure Territory business is best placed to win its share of work from the significant Defence presence in the Northern Territory. Our Northern Territory Defence Support Industry Development Strategy 2007-17 has seen the Henderson government partnering with the Defence Support Industry. Additionally, we have the Northern Territory Industry Participation Plan, which works through major project industry participations plans such as the INPEX LNG project. Proper planning processes such as this will ensure Territory businesses are prepared to adequately participate in these large scale projects which come on from time to time.
Economic stability is a priority area for the Henderson Labor government. Being economically sustainable is part of the Territory 2030 strategy, and that initiative is investing in the future of the Northern Territory. Under Growing the Territory, we have programs aimed at strengthening the local workforce and attracting skilled workers to the Northern Territory from interstate and overseas to address local skill shortages. This also includes the Henderson government’s Jobs NT strategy, which I have already touched on. Jobs NT will assist with the employment of 300 apprentices and 120 school based apprenticeships across government over the next three years.
There will be $2m through the Indigenous Training Employment Program to identify employment opportunities in remote communities, and provide relevant vocational education and training. A further $720 000 will become available to undertake the Skilled Worker campaign, and operate the Workforce Growth Unit. The unit is the government’s driver for attracting skilled and unskilled labour from around Australia and overseas to the Northern Territory.
One of the priority areas of the Territory 2030 strategy is knowledge, creativity and innovation. This aims to improve access to, and the use of, technology. As part of this initiative, we will see the implementation of the ICT outsourcing services contract under the new service model designed to meet strategic Northern Territory government requirements, including increased bandwidth, and the growing demand for mobile Internet services at competitive rates; the streamlining of the accounts payable process through implementing the electronic invoice management system; and the introduction of a purchase requisition workflow system to streamline processing of low value purchases across government.
Another Territory 2030 priority area which will focus on the environment and sustainable living is obviously the climate change area. Through Greening the Territory, businesses have been proactive in reducing their carbon footprint. Budget 2010-11 will provide $700 000 for the second year of the three year commitment of $2m for ecoBiz NT, an energy efficiency program for business under the climate change policy to improve environmental outcomes and reduce costs for local businesses. Importantly, the carbon footprint of Northern Territory government operations will continue to be reduced, along with associated savings in fuel consumption and electricity use, through the Green Fleet Strategy and the Green Leasing Strategy.
I would like now to move to the Power and Water Corporation. Budget 2010-11 provides for the continuation of our major infrastructure programs, particularly across the power network. The Henderson Labor government has committed $1.7bn to the Power and Water Corporation for this program. This is the single biggest commitment ever to the Power and Water Corporation, and its previous connotations, and is vital for every fabric of the Northern Territory, both now and into the future.
The Merv Davies report was handed down some time ago. Most of the Merv Davies report recommendations relate to improving the Power and Water Corporation’s maintenance operations in the longer term. The Power and Water Corporation has prepared a long-term action plan to ensure these recommendations are implemented, and to provide clear direction for its leaders and workforce. This long-term plan will account for a move towards condition-based maintenance and accountability, organisational structural changes, as well as training and development for Power and Water staff. It was amazing those things were not in place. As the Merv Davies report highlighted, they came about from the proposed sell-off by the CLP of the Power and Water Corporation.
Other areas …
Mr Elferink: Not true.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, it is in the report, member for Port Darwin; it is quite clear …
Mr Elferink: Not true; it is speculation.
Mr KNIGHT: A report was done which recommended - there was a decision by the CLP government to privatise power, water and sewerage services in the Northern Territory, and dismantle Power and Water itself.
The Remedial Asset Management Program, or RAMP, has assessed and tested 27 zone substations and set priorities for repairs, upgrades and replacement. The fourth quarter report shows the corporation is on track to achieve the targets set, and expects to complete the remedial works planned by December 2010.
On the subject of gas supply, the new on-specification gas supply from ENI has been available from the Blacktip gas field since January this year. The 286 km Bonaparte gas pipeline now transports gas from onshore just south of Wadeye, to the existing pipeline running from Alice Springs. They meet at Ban Ban Springs. Power and Water has also secured supplementary gas supply from Darwin LNG via an interconnect which we constructed at Wickham Point. This gives us three points of redundancy at the moment.
The Power and Water Corporation has secured gas supply from both Central Australia and the Top End for the next 25 years. The use of diesel fuel in remote communities will gradually reduce in favour of low-emission fuels, in line with the Northern Territory government’s Climate Change Policy and Territory 2030 strategy.
Moving on to generation, Power and Water has developed a generation investment strategy in response to strong demand for electricity in the Darwin/Katherine system, and increasing recognition of the need for a major refurbishment and life extension work on the 25-year-old Channel Island Power Station. The strategy advances acquisition and installation of generation units at Channel Island and Weddell Power Stations to support the growth in population, and the need to replace ageing infrastructure. The power stations at Weddell, Channel Island, Berrimah, Katherine and Tennant Creek, will all receive additional units at the combined cost of approximately $200m. Two Rolls Royce engines are already en route to Channel Island as part of the Henderson government’s commitment to securing the power needs for the Top End.
To provide for the future power needs of Alice Springs, the first of three 10.9 MW turbines arrived in mid-April - and everyone would be aware of those. All three units will be sited at the Owen Springs Power Station, providing an additional 33 MW of power to meet the growing demand of the town and the surrounding areas. The total cost of the work at Owen Springs is $126m, a great investment into Alice Springs …
Mr Conlan: And supported by unsightly power lines.
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry? They are great power lines.
Mr Conlan: Unsightly power lines.
Mr KNIGHT: They are beautiful!
Mr Conlan: We will make a note of that and let people know you think they are aesthetically pleasing.
Mr KNIGHT: It is a great investment for Alice Springs. It shows this government is committed to Alice Springs with land release, more public housing, upgrades to the hospital, schools, and now $126m going into a new power station which will serve Alice Springs for decades and decades into the future.
One important area of Power and Water is the power networks. The power networks capital investment reflects the remediation of the zone substations in response to the Merv Davies report recommendations. They include upgrading the capacity to complement the generation expansion and meet the growing needs of the Northern Territory. Upgrades are progressing at Casuarina, Snell Street, and City Zone. To keep pace with growth, both Lee Point and Frances Bay will undergo expansion, and the Channel Island switch over will be enhanced to allow for the additional generation capabilities.
On the subject of water, water and sewage services capital investment is designed to meet the demand from planned infrastructure and development and population growth, while complying with environmental requirements. To meet the growing needs of the Darwin CBD, work is almost complete on the installation of the 1.2 km water main along the south side of Darwin on the Esplanade and Daly Street. Stage 2 will soon start, with 9 km of mains, securing water supply to the CBD, Stuart Park and surrounding areas.
The Palmerston water supply will also be increased, with the addition of a new $2m mains and elevated water tank at the cost of $56.5m. That goes on top of Archer Zone Substation, so a huge investment into one of the great places in the Northern Territory - Palmerston. A particular focus has been placed on the new areas, including Palmerston East, for those new developments. Work to increase the capacity is under way now, with the raising of the Darwin River Dam wall, which will give us an extra 20% capacity. I have visited on several occasions and it is nearing completion. Also, work is being done on Manton Dam; we are recommissioning Manton Dam and looking at which way to go with that.
Approximately $55.7m is being spent on work to progress the closure of the Larrakeyah Sewage Outfall by 2011. This will involve diverting flows to the Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant will be upgraded in two stages - this year, and next year through the Dry. Expansion of waste water treatment facilities at Leanyer and Sanderson will soon be under way to support development in the Lee Point area of Lyons and Muirhead.
I will now move on to the Seniors area. We are seeing many more seniors calling the Territory home. That is why we have made a deliberate decision to cater for their needs as part of our plan of delivering for families and investing in the future of the Territory. Territory seniors, and other members of the Northern Territory Pensioner Concession Scheme, will benefit from Budget 2010-11 through the introduction of a new $8500 concession to assist senior Territorians and pension card and concession holders to buy a different style of home.
The Henderson government is also directing $49m towards construction of 150 new homes for seniors, and that is great news. This will include the development of three seniors’ villages. New seniors units are earmarked for the suburbs of Johnston, Malak, and Larapinta. Again, the Northern Territory Labor government is looking after Alice Springs. Work is also continuing on the previously announced $10m 40 new unit facility at Bellamack seniors village.
I am extremely pleased to see these innovative announcements on stamp duty concession and new seniors’ accommodation were welcomed by a number of organisations around the Territory.
Moving onto the other end of the scale - young Territorians. I am delighted the Henderson government has committed a new youth action plan for Palmerston. Palmerston is the Territory’s fastest growing city and has the youngest population. The Palmerston Youth Action Plan will include funding for the remodelling of positive learning centres at Palmerston High School and Gray Primary School to help students experiencing difficulty transitioning back to mainstream schooling.
Budget 2010-11 will also fund the action plan for more family support services and crisis accommodation. There will also be an additional $3.47m for Stage 2 of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan to help build on current initiatives to get young people in Alice Springs back to school and reduce their potential for contact with antisocial activities.
In addition, the Henderson Labor government will direct $6.4m towards to upgrade of the Centralian Middle School and the establishment of a youth hub at ANZAC Hill. I congratulate the Minister for Central Australia. He certainly is a strong advocate in Cabinet and Caucus for funding for Alice Springs; and it is great to see some real results coming out of that.
It is really great news in all areas across government, and for me particularly in my portfolios, that we are supporting business, we are creating jobs in the Territory, and we are looking after our seniors, and our youth. I commend the budget to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement – Achievements in Developing and Progressing Women’s Policy in the Northern Territory
Note Statement – Achievements in Developing and Progressing Women’s Policy in the Northern Territory
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, returning to the statement of the minister on developing and progressing Women’s Policy, and I will speak to it in my capacity as Minister for Public Employment.
Mr Elferink: Not even ready for their own ministerial responses.
Ms Lawrie: Yes, we are ready.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms Lawrie: We are ready.
Mr Elferink: You are clearly not ready.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The opposition has had its chance to talk about the budget; they are clearly not ready. They are out the back doing their sums to cover up their multibillion dollar hole, and they are just not ready to speak.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I am proud to say the Northern Territory government is an equal opportunity employer which strives to represent the community it serves. As a result, our public service contains a diverse mix of employees; the government recognises women are an extremely important part of this mix, and values the contribution they make to the workplace and to serving Territorians.
Currently, there are more than 12 500 women in the public service; that is actual people in jobs, not just positions. Those 12 500 women represent nearly 63% of the total public service workforce. Most female public servants work in the agencies of Health, Education and Tourism doing jobs in those areas, and in many diverse occupations.
Staffing trends show the proportion of women in the Northern Territory public sector has steadily increased from 54.3% in June 1993 to a figure of almost 63% currently. This government’s long-term strategic plan, Territory 2030, outlines several objectives to increase the number of women in leadership roles in both the private and public sectors. Those aims include increasing the proportion of Territory women on boards and committees; increasing the proportion of women in senior public service positions; increasing the proportion of women in elected positions, and increasing the proportion of Territory women self-identifying as holding a leadership position.
This government is committed to increasing the number of women in leadership and management roles in the public sector, and using a range of workforce development measures.
In 2009-10, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment set performance measures for women in executive positions in the NT Public Service at 40%. I am very pleased to inform the House, and the Minister for Women’s Policy, we reached that figure in March. However, 40% is still not reflective of our wider population. This government continues to work on initiatives to increase that figure. The Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment has implemented a number of initiatives and programs to help do so, and I will go through some of those now – Leadership programs, Discovery, and Women as Leaders program.
Discovery has helped female public servants to develop greater confidence, learn leadership skills, and build valuable support and business networks. This financial year, two programs were held in the Territory, with the Darwin-based program attracting 20 participants, and the Alice Springs program attracting 21. The program is aimed at the AO4 classification or equivalent, and above.
Lookrukin Indigenous Women’s Leadership program is a unique personal and professional development program for Indigenous women employed in the Northern Territory public sector. It has been designed so participants can gain the knowledge and skills necessary to increase effectiveness in their current position, and to improve their career progression. Participants undertake a Diploma of Management at Charles Darwin University. This program began last week with 20 Indigenous women taking part; 17 from across the NT public sector, two from Charles Darwin University, and one from the Australian government.
The Public Sector Management Program is a joint venture between the Australian and Territory governments resulting in a Graduate Certificate in Public Sector Management from Flinders University. The program is a national strategy coordinated in the Territory by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. This financial year, two programs were run in the Territory. In the Darwin-based program, 13 of the 22 participants were women employed by the NT Public Service. In Alice Springs, half the 16 participants were female NT public servants. Last year 12 women graduated from a group of 18.
The Australia and New Zealand School of Government is a consortium of Australian and New Zealand governments, universities and business councils. The Northern Territory became a member in 2008. This financial year, the Northern Territory public sector had two highly regarded women accepted into ANZSOG’s prestigious programs. Elizabeth Morris, the former Chief Executive Officer for Policy Coordination in the Department of Justice began the Executive Fellows Program, and has since been appointed a magistrate in the Darwin Magistrates Court. Penny Fielding, the Director of Aged and Disability Services within the Department of Health and Families began a two year part-time Executive Masters of Public Administration program.
Reward and Recognition: the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment coordinates the Territory’s Australia Day Public Service Medal every year. This year, Julie Nicholson, from the Department of the Chief Minister, received one of two Public Service Medals awarded in the Territory for her outstanding leadership and commitment to the machinery of government and its statutory requirements.
Mr Elferink: Hear, hear, and well deserved!
Dr BURNS: Very well deserved.
Maternity Leave: the Northern Territory government recognises that with such a large proportion of women working in the NT public sector we must be flexible about balancing work and family. To that end, our maternity leave provisions are generally equal, and in some cases better, than other Australian jurisdictions. An employee with at least 12 months continuous service is entitled to 14 weeks paid maternity leave at full pay rates, or 28 weeks at half pay. That can be combined with other forms of pay such as recreation leave, up to a maximum of 52 weeks.
Northern Territory public sector employees can also access a scheme which allows them to have up to six years unpaid leave after the birth of a child, or the adoption of a child. That is a very special provision which enables mums to spend time with their child in those very important formative years before school.
This government is continually looking to refine and improve these provisions wherever possible.
With women accounting for nearly 63% of our public service, it is not unfair to say they are the backbone of government service delivery. Women are a valued and integral part of the machinery of government, and this government will continue to ensure a workforce which is equitable and fair. We will also continue to improve our human resource policies, promote professional development, and reward outstanding work in our female public sector employees.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House, and I welcome the minister bringing it on. It is a very important debate. We should always be seeking to value women in our public service and in our community generally. I believe this government recognises that. Within the portfolio area of Public Employment, the initiatives I have detailed here are impressive, and they will continue and expand so we can recruit, attract, and retain the best quality women for our public service.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak on the achievements in developing and progressing women’s policy in the Northern Territory presented by the minister. This statement recognises and reinforces the vital role Territory women play every day as mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, educators, healers, carers, business and political achievers, and so much more.
Territory women play a major part in keeping our communities together and driving them forward. They have done this, and continue to do so, in an ever-changing social and economic environment, and whilst living with challenges many other Australian women will never encounter. As a bush member, I see firsthand the geographical and social challenges Territory women face and overcome, and I applaud them for their enduring strength and commitment.
It might be time to mention one Territory woman I know very well: Dawn Margaret McCarthy, my wife. Regarding the challenges Territory women face, it is very interesting three out of four babies were born in the bush, she completed a tertiary degree in the bush while, as a residence, all I provided was a Toyota Troop Carrier and a tent. That was for three-and-a-half years. There was a baby capsule bolted to the floor. She raised the second youngest child and completed a degree.
If anyone wants to make a comment on student accommodation at Charles Darwin University they should talk to my wife, because she found it palatial after returning to either Nudgeburra or Wanggulinji on the mail plane, to be greeted by a couple of kids, a husband, a dusty Toyota, and a travel itinerary which took us off to another homeland centre school. When we are talking about Territory women, I would like to get that on the public record. I believe it is fitting. Good on you, Dawn - a great choice of adventures and, you never know your luck - as I have been advised in this House you need plan B – plan B might be to hit the road again one of these days.
In Correctional Services our commitment to women is evident in many areas. The vast majority of our prisoners are Indigenous males and when they leave prison the majority return to their community. We have an obligation to the women and the families of those communities to do what we can to positively influence offender behaviour for the better.
The new era in Corrections is about building safer, stronger and more productive communities, by placing a stronger emphasis on breaking the offending cycle, and renewing the focus on rehabilitation, education, training, and reintegration. We aim to support Territory women to reintegrate their men back into the family and into the community.
Corrections professionals and specialists will work with the families of these offenders, community support groups, service providers, and industry, to ensure the appropriate delivery of rehabilitation, education, training, and work readiness skills to increase an offender’s chance of a successful return to the community. These specialists will contribute to women’s safety, health and wellbeing through the provision of programs such as the Indigenous Family Violence Offender Program, and by providing access to sex offender treatment programs.
It is also important to recognise the work done to improve conditions and support for women prisoners. The Ombudsman 2007 Report contained 67 recommendations, of which 41 are the responsibility of Northern Territory Correctional Services. Of these, 37 are complete, and four partially complete. Key achievements include: the development of the Female Prisoners in Prison Policy, which is also a commitment under the Building on Our Strengths Framework; the establishment of a female community service work party, and the construction of a new education and program facility for female offenders at the Darwin Correctional Centre, which has allowed seven women to have hands-on involvement in the construction project.
A number of other recommendations highlighted the need for improved infrastructure for women prisoners at Darwin Correctional Centre. Completed infrastructure includes: the provision of at-risk cells; the addition of cells to ease overcrowding and to provide accommodation for women who have achieved the lowest possible security rating, and providing parity with the rehabilitation and reintegration philosophy of the male living skills unit; and, the construction of a new visiting facility, including facilities for visiting children.
The construction of a new 25-bed facility at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre, which became operational in March this year, provides accommodation for women which is more conducive to their maintaining family ties, and has significantly reduced the need to transfer women from Alice Springs to Darwin. It also freed up valuable space in the correctional facility, which can be used for education and training initiatives. Education and training of inmates, both male and female, is fundamental to breaking the cycle of re-offending.
It is also pleasing to advise Northern Territory Correctional Services has established a Women’s Advisory Committee, which has representation from Corrections and other relevant areas of the Department of Justice, including HR. This committee monitors the achievements against the priorities identified in Building on our Strengths, not only for women outside the workplace, but also for those women in Correctional Services, balancing life in a custodial environment and family commitments.
In construction: over the last 10 years we have seen an increase in the number of women in senior roles in the construction industry. This is a welcome change. Within the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, there have been similar changes, and I have been impressed by the number of women holding senior positions within the new department. It is also taking place in the field of civil engineering, and the department’s strong focus on growing its own and investing in young graduates is paying off. One of the lead project managers on the $110m Tiger Brennan expansion project is a young Territory lady. We need to remember this one of the most significant road projects in the Territory’s history. It is being delivered within a project management framework called ECI, Early Contractor Involvement, which has not been used in the Territory before, and the project is on track for completion this year. This lady has a great public service future ahead of her.
At the end April this year, the Department of Construction and Infrastructure employed nine women as professional engineers and 13 women in the executive stream. This compares to just four women professional engineers and no women in executive positions within the Construction Division in 2000. This is an extremely significant change over the decade, and one the department and I wholly support.
We are also seeing more women entering into technical fields such as civil construction. My department reports there are 20 women in the technical stream, as against six in the Construction Division over the decade. The Construction Division 10 years ago employed a total of 57 women compared to a total 178 in the department today. This is over three times the number of women employed in 2000, and is something we can be very proud of.
Like all agencies, the Department of Lands and Planning is an equal opportunity employer. It has a strong management framework and a majority of women at the executive director level. This fact directly contradicts the assertion we are not promoting women within the public service to the executive level. The leaders in Lands and Planning are doing a great job in driving land release, delivering strategic planning, improving strategic business and financial services, growing our public transport network and delivering in Central Australia.
In Arts and Museums: in March this year the Northern Territory Library launched Territory Women, a newly compiled online database and display. This site contains biographical information on women who have contributed to the Territory way of life. I encourage all members to look at the site and gain an understanding of key women in our history. The library’s website describes the site as, and I quote from the website:
- This collection of information celebrates the women who have added to the Territory’s growth and community and who inspired and paved the way for the next generation of Territorian women. The launch of this database and the accompanying display aims to tell the many stories of these women who have, by their service, sacrifice and bravery led the way and became the makers of the Northern Territory history. Over 200 women will be researched and placed on this constantly evolving database which will be accessible for all Territorians via the library’s website.
Women plan and play an incredible role in the arts and culture environment of our Territory. Our key arts dealers are predominantly women, and our key festivals, the Aboriginal Arts Fair, Top End Arts Fair and Telstra Arts Awards are all heavily driven by women in the arts sector.
In celebrating the achievements of our Territory women, I am compelled to acknowledge the women of the Barkly - women like Shire President, Rosalie Kunoth-Monks, who leads her team with passion and strength of conviction for improved outcomes for the residents of the Barkly Shire. I also commend the work of other women across the Barkly Shire, too many for me to mention in one sitting, for their commitment to educating our children, healing our sick, caring for our disadvantaged, protecting our environment and heritage, and contributing to our local economy. It is for these women and women across the Territory that we continue to progress action on the key priorities of health and wellbeing, safety, economic security, leadership and participation and life balance.
I opened this statement recognising the importance of women in shaping our community and applauding them for their achievements to date. I very much look forward to celebrating future achievements of all Territory women. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I welcome this statement to the House and thank the minister for bringing it forward and, as the member for Araluen said, ‘a long time coming’. I believe we need to talk about women’s issues, and women in general, more often in this House so we can send out adjournment speeches to these women to show them we appreciate the hard work they do.
As the member for Barkly said, they are not just the backbone to society; they are the backbone to all elements of human life. They are wives, nannas, mothers, aunties, teachers, nurses, childcare workers, the grandmothers sitting down in the communities looking after their grandchildren or teaching their grandchildren traditional songs. They really are the backbone of all aspects of human life and society.
In thanking the minister for bringing this forward and talking about equal pay for women, White Ribbon Day, parental leave, safe houses and women’s leadership we have come a long way in recognising women. I do not think we have done enough. When we look at Aboriginal teacher assistants, health workers and police officers, there are two standards. The non-Indigenous police officers, Health staff and teachers have all sorts of remuneration for living in the bush. We certainly do not recognise our teachers and give them proper accommodation so they can live two or three as a family in a house, and go to school in morning and teach our children, or go to the clinic and fix the sink, or go to childcare and look after the children knowing they have had a good night’s sleep and the house has not been overcrowded.
I want to talk about women in my electorate. Old Lily Moketarinja at Hermannsburg has worked in the Education department for over 20 years and always lived in the missionary house; always lived in other people’s homes. She raised all her grandchildren. Unfortunately she lost her son five years ago, and had to raise all her grandchildren. She always depended on other families to house her. The Education department could not give her a home, even though she worked for the department for over 20 years.
The other one is a young sister of mine, Emslie Lankin, who works as a Band 2 administrator in the Health department at Hermannsburg clinic. She lives in an overcrowded house, but she still has to get up every morning, take her two little girls to school and kindy, and ensure she does her eight hours a day at Hermannsburg Clinic.
Her mother-in-law, Mona Kantawarra, and Edna Kantawarra, both with over 17 years in the Education department working at the Hermannsburg school, are always living in other people’s homes; always living in overcrowded situations. These people, like everyone else in the profession, are expected to go to work at 8.30 am and perform duties in the community, teach the students and help their colleagues inside the classroom or in the yard every day, and they go home to a situation of overcrowding.
There are men in the same category. There are Aboriginal male health workers who go home not to seven or eight people in a house, but over 20. I speak for my brother, Lionel Inkamala, at the Hermannsburg Clinic who goes to work every day; he has a real work ethic and teaches other people that going to work every day is good. He always goes home to three elderly people, 10 or so children under the age of 12, and other young fellows who live inside his house. As I said, he lives in a very overcrowded situation.
I would like to talk about someone I spoke of in this parliament a long time ago, and that is my sister-in-law, Linda Anderson, who is deputy principal of Papunya School, and has worked at the school for over 20 years. Linda still has to go home to someone else’s overcrowded house and find a bed, either in the lounge room or bunk up with other people, and she still goes to school every morning. Every morning she is in that classroom teaching kids and going to school five days a week. She also has to pick up the outstation children every morning.
There are many stories like that. There is Ampi at Kintore School, who has worked for the Education department for over 20 years, along with Irene Nangala; they are the backbones of the community, they do so much. It is the resource we all tap into as governments. If you want someone to speak up on something, if you want someone to be on a committee, guess who they get? Irene Nangala. Irene Nangala is on every committee. Irene Nangala is the backbone of the community at Kintore. If you want statehood, Irene Nangala is the one you have to get. If you want to be on a women’s committee, it is Irene Nangala. No one cares about Irene Nangala when she is broken down and sick. No one cares about her.
This is where I continue to speak up for these people and say, through the statement the minister has bought forward, we have come a long way. However, we still need the courage and strength to go further, to recognise these women are the backbone of these communities, are the backbone of their families, are the backbone to government committees, and to ensure things are done properly with consultation, with language, so we can filter the information back into the communities.
When are we going to make that gutsy decision to say Linda Anderson can no longer live in an overcrowded house with 13 or 14 people to a house? She is the Executive Principal of the Papunya School. When are we going to give her the same rights?
I will go back to saying I believe this statement is good; it is good to talk about these issues because it is an issue we need to confront, but we need guts. We need guts to say: ‘We are not going to cause a separate society. We are not going to create a poor-bugger education system for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. We are not going to create a poor-bugger health system for Aboriginal people based on race’. We have to start doing things properly.
If Linda Anderson is the Executive Principal of the Papunya School, then Linda is entitled to all the benefits every one of her colleagues in the Papunya School is. Mona Kantawarra, Lily Moketarinja – they are all entitled to the same benefits. These are the people we use.
On White Ribbon Day, I would like to really talk on this issue because domestic violence is like a big boil festering amongst all of us. It is good to have ambassadors to White Ribbon Day. However, do those ambassadors really know and feel the pain of victims of domestic violence, or is it they wear the little white ribbon on their jackets for the day to say: ‘We acknowledge you were bashed. We acknowledge you died. We acknowledge you were in hospital and had to have reconstruction’, as one young girl from Papunya had to? She had to go to Adelaide to have a reconstruction on her nose because her boyfriend or husband had kicked her face in.
We have to go beyond just wearing the white ribbon. I have never seen one of these ambassadors actually walk in the street, like the member for Braitling and I when we saw that woman getting thrown out of the car in Alice Springs. Instead of just putting the beautiful white ribbon on their jackets for the day, they need to get out and start talking to people. In my community of Papunya, when Charlie King, who is an ambassador, went to Papunya, the community was empty. He rocked up, spoke to two people - two men. One happened to be my brother. He spoke to Syd and Sammy. No one knew he was coming into the community. There was no organised community meeting to talk about the issues.
We can have all these ambassadors but are they real? Can they feel the pain? It is like the Police Commissioner when he first had the job and went on the road in Alice Springs. The member for Braitling and I were going in the right direction to where over 175 people were on the Royal Flying Doctor grass, and the Police Commissioner was going to the other side of town into the mall, which had been cleaned up for him. That is just not on. Either he has to see the problem we see as residents every day otherwise he is not going to make the right decisions. You cannot go around cleaning up Alice Springs because the Police Commissioner or the Chief Minister is coming to town. You have to leave Alice Springs for the Police Commissioner and the Chief Minister to see what we, as residents, see every day - what we see when we go to 24 hours, what we see when we are coming out of the Memo Club; what we see at the front of the hospital; what we see as residents of Alice Springs when we are driving past the Royal Flying Doctor, past Kentucky Fried Chicken. In the Gap you can have over 300 people, as there were on the long weekend of the Lightning Carnival.
Not one word is spoken by anyone. There are many assaults happening on the streets of Alice Springs - not one word. Who was in the street? I was in the street at 2 am watching it from the Kentucky Fried Chicken car park - absolutely amazed at how the town was out of control. However, did I hear Mayor Damien Ryan talk about the issue of losing control of his town the next morning, or the next week or the next month? No. He just wants to talk about the good issues - the good things happening in Alice Springs. The good things are being overridden by the bad things, and that is what tourists see when they come to Alice Springs - people getting bashed.
On that night of the Lightning Carnival two non-Indigenous people hopped over a woman getting bashed in the corner. This is how bad it has become in Alice Springs. Let us talk about the real issues.
Let us talk about the issues of giving teacher assistants like Lily Moketarinja and Alison Multa of Hermannsburg, and Irene and Ampi at Kintore, real houses, real rights. Let us talk about Lionel Inkamalaand Emslie Lankinhaving houses instead of going home to live in overcrowded situations. This is really caring about people. This is saying we do not treat you any differently to any of your other colleagues in the community.
Are we going to have the guts to do that? I do not think so. I think we are just going to pussyfoot around the edges of all policy and just say: ‘We will build you the black fella houses, we will give you the black fella education, and we will give you the black fella health that you deserve’.
We have created a separate society in the Northern Territory. That is why literacy and numeracy NAPLAN results are coming back with appalling results for the Northern Territory government. Our children are failing. We are failing in health, we are failing in everything. When I was at Docker River, the childcare centre was closed for the whole week I was there. Working mothers could not take their children anywhere but home, or take them to the nearest relatives, or take them to their grandmothers. I have had reports today that the Papunya Childcare Centre has been closed for two days. It was closed for a day last week.
These are the real obstacles in the way of advancing people. As I said at the very beginning, I welcome any debate in this House on advancing women and looking at women’s issues, however let us do it properly. Let us have our ambassadors go out into the streets of Alice Springs and pick up the pieces of all these women laying at the Royal Flying Doctor grounds. Let us not be afraid to talk about the negatives along with the positives.
That is the message from me to the Mayor of Alice Springs, Damien Ryan. You cannot just close the bad door, open up the good door, and deal with the good issues. A town belongs to a mayor, and a mayor needs to speak about the bad things and the good things. By dealing with and talking about the issues of influx of population from remote Aboriginal communities into the town, it becomes a better place for us to discuss these issues and talk to people.
When the town camp transformation happened, and the cleanup happened, I put a note on the back of the magazine going to my electorate encouraging people to respect the town. I said there is a major cleanup of town camps in Alice Springs, please respect other people’s country, and please respect the town of Alice Springs. That message went out from the local member to all constituents in my electorate. I did not see anyone else do that.
If we work together we can start getting real solutions to the huge problem we have. As I said, this is the beginning of something which has been brought inside this House, and we need to discuss the issues further because, really, all these women are the backbone to everything we do.
However, who picks up the pieces? Who cries for these people? There are certainly going to be no adjournments inside this House for Irene Nangala – no way. There is always a condolence motion for other people, but after you have worn old Irene Nangala out, you are not going to have a condolence motion for her. That is the kind of thing we have to understand and respect: these people are special elements, a special part of their community, and we have to respect them.
Are they teachers, or are they just teacher assistants? Do they live in overcrowded houses and still have to come to school to teach the children? Are they health staff, professional staff, do they work inside the clinic, do we allow them to live in overcrowded situations - we are not teaching them. This is the education strategy we need to have in place. I will go back to saying to the Mayor of Alice Springs: ‘You are the mayor. You are the owner of the town. You need to talk about the bad things that happen in Alice Springs as well’.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forward her statement.
I congratulate Damien Ryan for the effort he has made in the town. He has done a great job. He certainly tries to bring the town together. He speaks very strongly to me, as minister, and other ministers. I am sure he takes the issues to the highest level - to the Chief Minister. I congratulate Damien Ryan for all his efforts. I do not accept the assertions by the member for Macdonnell. He is a fine gentleman and looks after all Centralians in Alice Springs.
I support the statement from my colleague, the Minister for Women’s Policy. As you have heard, the Henderson government is making progress to enhance the development of women’s policy in the Northern Territory and, despite the fact the Territory suffers from the frontier reputation in certain quarters, I believe most Territorians see things differently. We are making progress. The Territory is somewhere women can enjoy ever increasing access to areas traditionally denied them in the past. Women can, and are, winning places in the highest levels of the Territory. I was delighted, several years ago, when speaking with another parliamentarian about the Northern Territory and our women parliamentarians.
At that time we had a female Chief Minister, a female Opposition Leader, a female Speaker and I believe there were some other roles played by female parliamentarians of the Northern Territory Assembly. I was very honoured to recount the representation of those particular women. I believe that helps in the guidance of policy and considerations in this House, and the manner in which we do our business. I was very chuffed to do that.
More recently, we have had the elevation of Jenny Blokland as a judge in the Supreme Court. A great achievement and another great role model for Territory women. Women are achieving due recognition and should be given a great deal of adulation. However, despite the achievements of individuals I have mentioned, I think we would all accept there is much more to be done before we can say Territory women are in a position to take advantage of the opportunities the Territory offers.
When I look at many women in my own electorate, and other bush electorates, they certainly do it extremely tough and endure more than perhaps we can ever imagine. It is encouraging to see young women coming from out bush, and also many of the older women are standing up when they are frail and tired, trying to combat social issues out bush. In my time in the bush I would like to acknowledge a few. This does not represent everyone I have met.
I was talking to the minister about a young lady I met at Ngukurr and worked with about seven or eight years ago. I met young Daphne Daniels, David Daniels’ daughter. She was very thoughtful; she was always struggling, trying to get things for the community, to get the message out, to get cohesion, to get a place for young people in the community.
In that community, I had the opportunity to do housing surveys. Housing is often discussed in this Chamber, however, I believe there are very few members in this House who have done housing surveys which go into every single room of every single house in a community - every single toilet, bathroom, bedroom - to see the conditions. I am very aware of conditions in Indigenous housing and Ngukurr, being a long established community, has different generations of housing. I saw where Daphne lived; I saw the conditions she had to go home to, she had to sleep in, yet she would front up first thing in the morning in her role in the media area at Ngukurr, and take on issues. I had a good night’s sleep; I could go to my home in Katherine, but Daphne was doing much more even before she reached the front door of the office in the morning. I congratulate her, and I hope she sticks with leadership in that community.
Ros Frith from Kalkarindji is now the chair of the Katherine West Health Board. She is a very feisty character and not one to cross. She is a great person; a beautiful person. She has a really big heart. She stands up for her community; she stands up for the rights of women also. She stands up for everything basically, and does it with compassion; a very intelligent lady. She is now heading up Katherine West Health Board, and I am sure that health board will go to a new level.
In my time at Timber Creek, the Jones family was very strong, and the women were very strong. I think they get it from their mother. The older girls, Deborah, Lorraine, and Carol, are very strong, intelligent women. They struggle with issues out bush. Debra was involved with the resource centre, and Lorraine is still involved with the police. They took tough decisions; we all took tough decisions there. I could go home, turn off, lock the door; shut the curtains, but Debra had to go back into the same community where she had made tough decisions; tough decisions for her own family. She has endured; Lorraine, as well.
She was the one who, not so many years ago, had had enough of domestic violence in the Timber Creek communities of Myatt, Gilwi Muruning and Bulla. She led the charge in getting DVOs on not only her previous partner, but in encouraging other women too. There were DVOs going everywhere, and rightly so. It certainly snapped the young men into gear about what could and could not happen. That is where these leaders in communities raise the bar; a bar only mothers, and women, and sisters and aunties can do. I guess they have a different way of approaching things than men.
I recognise those Jones’ women; they are very tough, very intelligent. I met Lorraine recently in Palmerston. A total of 12 Jones children are attending Catholic schools in Melbourne; they are succeeding. Her son, Calvin, is only 13 or 14 years and he has been to Europe studying for a year. These kids are studying down south and will come back into leadership roles. They will respect women because their mothers made sure they would. It is great to see.
On the other end of the scale, the older women in these communities - and I recognise Theodora Narndu at Port Keats, a very strong woman and traditional owner. Theodora is the head of the women’s association, and they have done fabulously in with their business enterprises. For someone who is frail and ageing, she is participating, and still leading the women. Seeing her on Saturday at the AFL grand final at Wadeye, cheering her sons and the rest of the family members on and dancing them onto the field was very impressive. I know she is not well, but it certainly seemed to lift her.
One other very strong lady in the region, Betty Daly at Daly River, is a very knowledgeable, forthright woman who is leading by example in her own community, and family, to respect women and gain independence through education - driving her kids, grandkids and her great grandchildren into education. The Daly clan are all attending school regularly, and that family will grow and be leaders into the future.
The Wilson family are at Peppimenarti, with the matriarch, Regina. She has a few boys, but Naiya and Nunuk are great leaders in the community and have taken on the club. Niah and her partner run the club, and Nanuk is heavily involved with the art side. It is a great credit to them.
There are some particular issues I would like to touch on with respect to women: economic security and women’s safety. The issues of economic security and safety for women and children are issues we must continue to progress. We have seen the development of safe places in key communities across the Northern Territory, with the increased presence in the bush. The Henderson government has also introduced groundbreaking mandatory reporting of domestic violence to help protect women and children. Sadly, the statistics show far too many Aboriginal women are victims of domestic violence. The push to report, and to get DVOs against partners who are doing the wrong thing is important, as I have said.
This government will certainly not shy away from doing whatever it can to enhance the protection of women across the Northern Territory. We will work to support police in their efforts against this most insidious form of violence, both physical and mental. The Henderson government has also committed to a range of alcohol strategies, which also play a key role in protecting women. All too often, it is the women in the Northern Territory who are the victims of this totally unacceptable alcohol-fueled violence.
The Police minister has advised the House about initiatives contained in Budget 2010-11 to improve remote policing. This will help advance the safety of women in our remote regions. Budget 2010-11 delivers $30.6m for police in remote communities. This means $27.1m for policing in 18 remote communities, which is a key part of our A Working Future strategy. Further, Budget 2010-11 contains $2.8m to reduce substance abuse in remote communities. Budget 2010-11 also delivers $2.6m to boost the Crimes Victims Assistance Fund which provides important services to victims of crime, including free counselling and financial assistance. These are important advances.
As a government, we recognise there is an extensive legacy of disadvantage when it comes to the safety of women and children in the bush, and a long-term concerted effort certainly is required. The Henderson government recognises the challenges and we are committed to policies which help meet those challenges.
Economic security remains an ongoing challenge for women, particularly women in the regions. It is not just because of the limited financial circumstances in the bush. The Henderson government is committed to the development of growth towns across the Territory as part of our A Working Future strategy. Members will have heard the Treasurer announce the biggest-ever annual investment to support the development of our growth towns and the improvement in services for people living in the bush. This will produce valuable spin-offs for women living in our regions. The Henderson government is committed to working with the Australian government to transform our growth towns. We are putting money into housing, land servicing, and essential services.
This is vitally needed other infrastructure required to normalise those towns. Once that is achieved, you can expect normal behaviour and treatment of women, and normal opportunities for women to participate in the labour market.
We have also invested $12m to improve services in the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, and Sport and Recreation programs in communities. This will give equity to women.
With respect to jobs, the ABS Labour Force data contains encouraging news regarding economic security for Territory women. The ABS figures show Territory women have the second-highest female workforce participation rate in Australia at 68.2%. The Territory also has the lowest female unemployment rate in Australia at 3.4%. At the national level, the participation rate for women was 58.3%, while the female unemployment rate was 5.2%. A great result for the Northern Territory - 68% participation rate for women is certainly excellent. Budget 2010-11 provides money for Jobs NT 2010-2012. This includes initiatives to help Territory business develop their skilled workforce and meet demands for growth into the future.
Job creation is part of the Henderson government’s plan for delivering now for Territory families and investing in the future. More than 10 000 new apprenticeship and traineeship positions have commenced with the support of this Territory government initiative; that is a 57% increase since 2001. The development plan has a range of initiatives within it - traineeships and apprenticeships. The reason I wish to re-emphasise the Henderson government’s commitment to training our own is data on apprenticeship commencements for the period July 2009 to May of this year shows 61% of all apprentice commencements are female; 61% is great news.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Business and Employment, it is now 5.30 pm, and in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination
Interstate Travel - Member for Greatorex
Remuneration Tribunal Determination
Interstate Travel - Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a report from the member for Greatorex in relation to RTD interstate travel.
INFORMATION AMENDMENT (INTER-ORGANISATION DISCLOSURE) BILL
(Serial 105)
(Serial 105)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill deals with the principle where a public sector ‘may’ share confidential information rather than ‘must’ share the information, rather than finding other reasons to avoid doing so. There were examples given in the range of public hearings on child protection earlier in the year, that when child protection information was required by government bodies, it was repeatedly refused due to privacy restrictions placed on that information.
These amendments to the Information Act proposed by this bill are intended to give clarity to government organisations that the information they hold is the property of the government, and should be able to be accessed by other government bodies to assist them in fulfilling their statutory responsibilities and obligations.
This is particularly so when information held by a public sector organisation would prevent the ongoing abuse or exploitation of a child, but cannot be disclosed due the privacy or confidentiality provisions of certain Territory legislation. If a public sector organisation requires information which attracts conditions of confidentiality or privacy under the Care and Protection of Children Act, Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Registration) Act, Coroners Act, Domestic and Family Violence Act, Education Act, Health and Community Service Complaints Act, Ombudsman Act 2009, Public Interest Disclosure Act or a law prescribed by regulation, they will be able to request the holding entity to provide confidential information which directly relates to the requesting organisation’s responsibilities and obligations.
It also allows the holding entity to approve or deny that request in full, or partially. In the event information is refused, the requesting organisation can submit a request for review of decision to the minister. The minister may delegate this responsibility unless the information is directly related to child protection information. The process works in a similar way to the way a member of the public would access government information, but with time lines that reflect the fact operational requirements demand a more prompt response than the ridiculous times agencies regularly take when responding to an FOI request from a member of the public.
Debate adjourned.
OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 52)
(Serial 52)
Continued from 18 August 2009.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I speak to the opposition’s bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend section 165 of the Ombudsman Act to extend the powers of the Ombudsman to look into matters relating to open police complaints commenced prior to the commencement of the Ombudsman Act but not completed at the time the act came into operation. The bill would not only capture inquiries or investigations about police conduct, but would also extend to inquiries and investigations about the administrative action of government departments commenced under the repealed Ombudsman legislation that had not been completed at the time the Ombudsman Act commenced.
Section 165 is a standard transitional provision similar to a number of other transitional provisions found in other Territory legislation, for example, Part 15 of the Taxation Administration Act. Section 165 of the Ombudsman Act ensures the procedural integrity of inquiries and investigations commenced under the repealed Ombudsman legislation but not completed upon the commencement of the Ombudsman Act continue to operate as if the former Ombudsman legislation had not been repealed.
The amendment proposed by the bill is retrospective in nature, and whilst it provides for the use of alternate dispute mechanisms such as conciliation and mediation under the Ombudsman Act, there is potential the amendments would have a substantial adverse effect on the rights of a person who is the subject of an inquiry or investigation. My advice is only a small percentage of total cases the Ombudsman deals with are affected by this amendment, and those particular cases are either already completed or nearing completion. To pass this amendment would press the reset button and could be considered a waste of time and resources to start these investigations again.
I have also received advice from the Ombudsman that she does not support this amendment for the same reasons I have just spoken about. Honourable members would agree the Ombudsman and her staff should be congratulated for their efforts in improving the quality of public administration and conduct of police officers through the resolution of complaints in such an efficient and effective manner.
Whilst there is no objection to the principle of the bill, based on the small number of cases this affects and the time it would extend these cases remaining open, it is considered there would be little practical benefit gained from the amendment.
Finally, legislation having retrospective effect should only be supported if it is necessary to avoid unfairness or to enable efficiency. Neither of those criteria would apply to this bill.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the bill the opposition has before this House at this point in time is not supported by the Ombudsman. She does not believe it would benefit that small number of cases which are either completed, or nearing completion. The government is unable to support this bill, given that, in consultation with the Ombudsman, she does not support this amendment. For those reasons, the government does not support the bill.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I find the argument does not convince, when the principle prescribed in the amendment is supported as the Chief Minister has described, then says it is not justified, however, because of the small number it would have little practical effect, and the Ombudsman does not support it. Taking it from another perspective, if the principle is supported and the small number, in fact, relate to complaints and concerns by individuals, though small in number, I do not believe it is a sufficient argument to discount this amendment.
The purpose is to deal with those matters which have been in existence for an extended period of time, and to bring some resolution to those specific cases. To make the judgment it has little practical effect is like saying you are walking along a beach - you know the old story - there are starfish all over the beach as a result of some storm or some catastrophe, some strange event, and there is a little boy walking along picking up starfish and throwing them into the sea and someone said to him: ‘What is the point of doing that when you look up and down the beach there are so many of them? What difference do you think you could make?’ He picked up another one and threw it into the sea and said: ‘It is going to make a large difference to this one’.
If we are saying it is a small number so therefore it will make little difference in the broader scheme of things, the Chief Minister and Police minister would well know the concerns of the individuals represented by this small number are significant, and it would make a big difference to that one, two or three.
Little practical effect? Perhaps not in the broad scheme of things, but it would have significant effect and benefit to those one, two, three or four. That is the point of this. If the principle is supported, I do not believe the argument that there are not enough to warrant it, it would not have much benefit - it would have a significant benefit to those that have given rise to this amendment.
It is disappointing to hear the Chief Minister has discounted the calls for assistance from those this amendment seeks to assist, and their calls have been discounted because there are not many. I do not think that is a particularly strong or good argument.
Madam Speaker, I urge members to provide their support for this amendment because it will make a big difference to those who have matters they seek resolution on.
Motion negatived.
SENTENCING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CRIME OF MURDER) BILL
(Serial 55)
(Serial 55)
Continued from 18 August 2009.Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the government certainly does not support this bill. The bill proposes to give a legislative stamp to what was CLP policy when it was in government. The CLP policy was mandatory life really meant, after serving 20 years, release could be considered by Cabinet on application of a lifer. This government introduced a fairer and more transparent system in 2004, bringing the Northern Territory into line with all other Australian jurisdictions.
The 2004 amendments enabled the Supreme Court to determine non-parole periods for persons convicted of murder, and leave the decision as to whether a lifer is released on parole, appropriately we believe, to the Parole Board. The Parole Board is an impartial body chaired by a Supreme Court judge comprised of professionals and community representatives. No other Australian jurisdiction has politicians presiding over which prisoners are to be released on parole.
This bill would see politicians presiding over which prisoners should be released on parole instead of the Supreme Court setting a non-parole period and the Parole Board considering parole after the expiry of that period. It would be effectively up to the Cabinet of the day to make a recommendation to the Administrator to exercise the prerogative of mercy. The prerogative of mercy has its place, but we do not support it as the only means by which a person convicted of murder can be released on licence. The problem with the scheme proposed in the bill is it has very real potential to result in prisoners not receiving equal consideration for parole, as they do when they come before a professional and impartial body such as the Parole Board, because political considerations could influence the recommendations made to the Administrator.
Apart from politicising the release of murderers on licence, this bill does nothing. The Leader of the Opposition stated in his second reading speech that:
- These amendments are to ensure that persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder serve that time. The only exception is, under exceptional circumstances, the Administrator provides for the release of a prisoner under special licence.
This is highly misleading. The criteria under which the Administrator can remit the sentence have no reference to exceptional circumstance. They are exactly the same criteria as exist under section 53A of the Sentencing Act, which the Supreme Court currently applies in setting non-parole periods. Section 53A was part of the 2004 amendments enacted by this government.
Statements by the Leader of the Opposition in his second reading speech that anything less than a life sentence for murder diminishes the value of human life, misleadingly suggests life imprisonment is not currently the sentence for murder. It is. A person convicted of murder remains under sentence of imprisonment for life. They might be released on parole, but the sentence of life imprisonment continues and they are liable to be incarcerated again for any breach of parole.
Finally, the affect of this bill will be all murderers will not be treated equally. Those sentenced before the government’s amendments in 2004 will continue to have deemed non-parole periods of 20 or 25 years under the Sentencing (Crime Of Murder) and Parole Reform Act. Those sentenced since the 2004 amendments will retain the non-parole periods set out by the Supreme Court, and those sentenced after the enactment of the Sentencing Legislation Amendment (Crime of Murder) Bill 2009, should it be passed, will be subject to this new politicised regime.
Madam Deputy Speaker, for these very sound reasons the government does not support this bill which is simply politicisation of a very serious subject.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not support this bill, and I will give my reasons why. I supported the changes to the original sentencing procedures the government introduced a number of years ago, as I believed they were tough but fair, and I still support those changes.
The system being introduced today goes back to a system which, I believe, is out of step with approaches to dealing with murder in other parts of Australia. It is more about looking tough on crime rather than dealing with the reality of the existing legislation. In fact, it is probably a retrograde step when it comes to the quality of our justice system. We have some of the toughest legislation in Australia when it comes to dealing with the crime of murder. We could argue over some of the details of the legislation, but the facts are a murderer is still sentenced for life, however, according to circumstances for each individual case, a murderer can have their case for parole put before a parole board at 20 years, 25 years, or any other date set by a judge, or never get to a parole board because the prisoner is never to be released. Even though a prisoner may be eligible for parole, there is no guarantee they will be released, as seen in some recent cases. Even if released they are still convicted for life, and that is never removed. A breach of parole means they are back in prison.
The opposition bill sounds like they are attempting to introduce change to make the laws tougher by introducing the Administrator as the person who decides on a remission of sentence, so basically a prisoner is eligible for parole under the same rules as present. Strangely, the second reading does not mention the word Administrator, or any details surrounding the bill. If you read the second reading, you might be forgiven for thinking it was about media release, or a dissertation on crime and punishment - which is certainly a worthy philosophical topic for debate – however, it is not a second reading dealing specifically with the amendment before us, and does not show any decisive argument for changing the existing situation.
I believe this change makes the law weaker, not stronger, because it relies on the Administrator to make a decision and therefore presumes he has all the skills and knowledge to do so. At the moment we have a far better system. We have a parole board made up of citizens of the Northern Territory.
To give you an idea on why I believe the Parole Board is the most qualified to make a decision, I would like to read from the 2008 Parole Board report. I should make a comment: I have done everything to find the 2009 Parole Board report and it does not seem to be around. I am referring to the 2008 Parole Board report. The membership of the board, under the Parole of Prisoners Act, requires the board must have 10 members made up of the Chief Justice or another nominated judge, the Executive Director of Correctional Services, a member of the police force nominated by the Commissioner of Police, a person who is a registered medical practitioner or a registered psychologist, a person who represents the interests of victims of crime, and five persons who reflect, as closely as possible, the composition of the community at large and include women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
Members described in the last three categories are appointed by the Administrator for three year terms, are eligible for reappointment, and may resign their membership, in writing, to the minister. Although there are 10 appointed members, the constitution of the board by all members is only required for a matter relating to a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder.
The Chief Justice, or another judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice, is the chairman of the board. The Chief Justice nominated – and I am using names from 2008 – Justice Riley as chairman for the 2008 calendar year. Justice Southwood chaired two meetings during 2008. The minister may appoint a person to act as a member of the board while a member is not available, or there is a vacancy on the board.
During 2008, the membership of the board comprised Justice Trevor Riley, Chairman; Mr Ken Middlebrook, Executive Director of Correctional Services; Superintendent Carlon, an NT Police representative; Ms Susan Lowry, Victims of Crime representative; Mr Paul Rysavy, psychologist, Darwin; Mr John Flynn, Darwin; Ms Dawn Fleming, Alice Springs; Mr Alan Domaschenz, Katherine; Ms Jill Huck, Darwin; and Ms Patricia Miller, Alice Springs.
The functions of the board are it decides which prisoners with sentences including a non-parole period will be released on parole, sets the conditions of release, may vary the conditions of a parole order, and determines if and how a parole order should be revoked. In relation to the release of a prisoner, the Parole Board considers all cases where a prisoner’s sentence has a non-parole period specified by the court. A non-parole period is a minimum term of imprisonment during which an offender is not eligible to release from prison on parole.
This is the important part: for a matter relating to a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of life for the crime of murder, the standard non-parole period is 20 years, or 25 years in certain cases. There is also a provision for the court to consider exceptional circumstances to reduce, increase or refuse to set a non-parole period on such matters. The Parole Board has to consider a broad range of material when deciding whether to release a prisoner to parole.
The documentation will always include a parole report prepared by the assigned parole officer; an institutional report prepared by staff of the correctional centre or detention centre where the prisoner or detainee is held; a record of prior convictions; and a transcript of the Supreme Court sentencing remarks if the prisoner was sentenced in that court. The board may also consider such other reports as are relevant to the individual case including a pre-sentence report, psychological/psychiatric assessment and reports, medical assessments and reports, assessments and reports on substance misuse programs and treatment facilities, legal opinions, letters and/or reports from interstate services, letters from the prisoner, and letters from the victim or victim’s representative.
For matters relating to a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder, the board may also consider submissions from members of the victim’s family, or representatives from the community if the prisoner is an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander who identifies with a particular community. The Chairman may require prisoners to be brought before the board pursuant to sections 3G of the Parole of Prisoners Act. No prisoners were required to attend a board meeting during 2008.
Under section 5 of the act, the Parole Board has the discretion to direct the release of the prisoner on parole providing the time of release is after the exploration of the non-parole period. The board may decline to release the prisoner to parole, or defer consideration to a later meeting. Prisoners may also decline parole consideration.
Conditions of release, section 5(5)(a) of the Parole of Prisoners Act, requires a person released shall be subject to supervision and obey all reasonable direction of the appointed supervisor for the duration of the parole period. A variation of parole conditions states parole conditions can be changed at any time. Revocation: if a parolee fails to comply with conditions of parole order the supervising parole officer prepares a report for the board’s consideration setting out the circumstances of breach. The breaches fall into two categories: re-offending and conditional breach.
The other important thing, release on parole of a prisoner serving life imprisonment for murder – I presume this comes under the Sentencing Act - the section applies if the board is considering the release on parole of a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder. The board may invite persons to make submissions on the matter to the board, including the victims of crime, if the prisoner is an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander who identifies with a particular community of Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander representatives of that community.
In considering the matter, the board must have regard for the principle that the public interest is of primary importance and, in doing so, much give substantial weight to the following matters: the protection of the community is a paramount consideration - the likely effect of the prisoner’s release on the victim’s family and, if the prisoner is an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander, the likely effect of the prisoner’s release on that community.
The board must give reasons for any decision or direction on that matter, and those reasons must be included in proceedings kept under section 3F(7).
When the board meets to decide the fate of a person eligible for parole, the chairman shall preside at all meetings of the board at which he is present, and at that meeting a quorum is constituted by, for a matter relating to a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment for life for murder, the chairman and seven other members, or for matters relating to any other prisoners, the chairman and three other members. At the meeting of the board, questions of law are determined by the chairman, and questions other than questions of law concerning the release on parole of a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment for life for the crime of murder, are to be determined by unanimity of votes.
In other cases, that is a majority. In the case of murder, you not only have a body which has to go through all these considerations, some of which are specialist considerations such as psychological reports, drug and alcohol reports – a whole range of things. The Parole Board has to deal with all of these issues and, at the same time, make a decision which is unanimous. I believe that is the better system. It is putting the decision into the hands of the community, a victim of crime, and a range of specialists. I believe that system is a fairer system than the one put forward today.
Madam Speaker, I believe the act is quite strong. For a prisoner with a life sentence it is a fairly difficult process to be given parole, and the system should be left in the hands of the Parole Board. It is made up of Territorians who represent a broad section of the community. I believe the decision should be left in their hands. Putting the decision into the hands of the Administrator has the opposite effect; it makes the process weaker. For those reasons, I do not support this amendment.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals are committed to delivering certainty in sentencing. Labor repealed the previous ‘life means life’ sentencing in 2003 which allowed prisoners to apply for parole after 20 or 25 years, or in some situations significantly less time. Certainty is important.
I acknowledge the arguments which have been made. However, I also acknowledge the underlying issue that needs to be dealt with to the satisfaction of the wider community. The Attorney-General used the term ‘politicians making the decision’, as though that demeaned the office of politician. I do not know why that would be so because the politician should be the reflection of the community standard. I believe that is a standard, or an ideal, which could be enhanced through that sense of responsibility one does bare when one takes such an office.
I hold that in mind, and I will not concede the point of the pejorative term politician being the strength of the argument: who are politicians to decide such matters. I do take a contrary view with regard to the status of the office, even thought we have cause, perhaps, to succumb to the view of some that it is not a high or noble office when in fact it is, even though there may be reason to take an alternate view.
The Country Liberals strongly opposed Labor’s changes to sentencing for murder at the time, particularly the provisions which allowed parole in what the minister described as truly exceptional circumstances. The effect of such was to reduce that notion of certainty. That certainty sits in the context of the loss of a life, and the need to have the value of that lost life reinforced as a standard external from the individual stories in and around the case, particularly for the one left the perpetrator - the murderer. The opposition is left pondering how best to reinforce that, to meet that community expectation and reinforce that standard, the value of life.
The bill removes the 3-in-1 sentencing regime introduced under Labor to confirm a life sentence is for life. The ability for a person’s character to be the grounds for parole prior to 25 years will be abolished, as will the Parole Board’s role in applications for the crime of murder. The only exception would be the granting of a special licence for release by the Administrator after 20 or 25 years, depending on the circumstances of the crime and, then, it would only be in the most exceptional circumstances.
Territorians, whether they are the general public or a prisoner, need to know the sentence determined by the court in relation to a crime is the sentence the offender will complete. The continual undermining of the court’s decisions affect the stability of law and order in the community and the faith of families of victims - in this instance, a person who takes the life of a loved one receives a sentence consummate with the crime committed; that is, life for life.
Certainty in sentencing is not an issue of vengeance for crime; it is an issue of maintaining and reinforcing a very important principle and value standard in our community. It is ensuring severity, and the impact the crime had on the victim and society at large, is not diminished due to the skill of the defence lawyer to demonstrate good character, or call convincing witnesses to appeal to a parole board.
There is any number of diversionary, rehabilitation or education programs which provide second chances and divert people in high-risk domestic violence situations that are often the catalyst for murders in the Territory. There should be no second chances for a murderer. They have certainly provided no second chance for their victim.
Listening to the responses, particularly from the member for Nelson, has given me cause to consider perhaps there is some room to move. It caused me to consider if the special licence for release is to be provided by the Administrator under this circumstance, advice is being provided by the Cabinet, which is the executive arm of government representing the people. However - this is to foreshadow an area of consideration - what I am concerned about is the outsourcing of responsibility. That sets a precedent I am uncomfortable with, when you have the need to preserve institutions’ values and principles. The outsourcing of responsibility to a parole board, at arms length from government, is of concern to me. I need to investigate how that could be remedied.
Perhaps a way around this could be where the parole board, in its deliberations and considerations as described by the member for Nelson, could weigh the matter, the recommendation would be unanimous, and that recommendation be made to Cabinet for the ultimate decision on the matter. Essentially, I have a concern about the outsourcing of responsibility. We have seen that as a dangerous trend in government. You have all the institutions, and responsibility is outsourced here, there, and everywhere. Ultimately, you do not find the place where responsibility resides. Where does that ultimate responsibility reside? I believe the expression of the people, through our democratic process, ultimately, resides - and should reside - with government. Therefore, there may be some room to move in this area.
It is a space we will not vacate because of the need to reinforce those important principles about the value of life to those around the life lost; that life does have meaning by the response shown by the institutions and the mechanisms we have to reinforce such principles.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge honourable members to support this amendment, notwithstanding the indication I have given that there may well be room for movement because I sense it is not going to proceed through the Chamber. Nonetheless, we will continue to look for a way through in the best interests of our community.
Motion negatived.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (CHILD SEXUAL OFFENCE) BILL
(Serial 50)
(Serial 50)
Continued from 18 August 2009.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support this bill. We have had debates in this regard in the past, so I am sure our lack of support does not come as a surprise to the member for Araluen.
The bill proposes an amendment to section 127 of the Criminal Code Act, sexual intercourse or gross indecency with a child under 16, to provide what is known as a Romeo and Juliet clause; a defence of similarity of age. This bill provides a defence to the person charged with the offence of having sexual intercourse with a child under 16.
In her second reading speech of Tuesday, 18 August 2009, the member for Araluen stated repeatedly that this bill: seeks to provide a defence to a person who is prosecuted as a result of failure to report pursuant to proposed amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act. She claimed this bill provides a defence for a person prosecuted under section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act. We contend the bill does no such thing.
The member for Araluen has completely confused two very separate offences. On the one hand, it is an offence under section 127 of the Criminal Code to have sexual intercourse with, or commit an act of gross indecency, upon a child under 16. On the other hand, it is an offence under section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act to fail to report suspected child abuse, or the suspected commission of sexual offences in certain circumstances. Section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act provides for a defence of reasonable excuse.
If the member for Araluen’s bill was passed, no doubt it would be a reasonable excuse for a person not to report suspected sexual intercourse where the person committing the act could rely on a defence of similarity of age. However, this is an indirect and unnecessary way of achieving the aim stated by the member for Araluen.
The government amendments to section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, which were passed during the August 2009 sittings of the Legislative Assembly, directly ensure there is no obligation to report sexual activity involving a child 14 years or over where there is no more than two years of age difference between the child and the sexual partner.
Turning specifically to contents of the bill, by requiring proof of the absence of coercion, the proposed subsection (4A)(c) essentially introduces a requirement for proof of consent to the act of sexual intercourse or gross indecency. Consent is not an element of an offence under section 127 and therefore it cannot form part of a defence to the offence. The offence is complete upon the act of sexual intercourse or gross indecency upon the child under 16. If there is coercion, the appropriate offence is under a different section - section 192.
It is noted the model Criminal Code defence of similarity of age, and such defences in other jurisdictions, do not require proof of absence of coercion or proof of consent. The government believes it is entirely inappropriate to amend the Criminal Code in order to provide a defence for an offence under a completely different piece of legislation. The government has already dealt with this issue by making the appropriate amendments to section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will not be supporting this bill.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, you are right: it does not come as a surprise. I am interested to read the Hansard of the Attorney-General’s comments because - I should qualify this - some of it did not seem to make sense or be correct.
The purpose of this bill was not to provide a defence to section 127 or section 192 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of the bill was to provide a defence for those who failed to report under - I think it is acknowledged on both sides as badly worded - section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act. The objective was to create certainty. I do not believe, and I am not alone - I have spoken with the Law Society, from memory - it is not agreed that certainty should accompany any piece of Legislation. We thought it appropriate, and still do, given section 26, that a defence should be provided so people of the Northern Territory, in particular health practitioners, whom you will recall were variously confused about the unintended consequences of section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, were clear about it. There was much confusion. We simply sought to correct that confusion, and we have another bill as well. We thought it was important, and we were not alone, that a clear defence be established. Quite a bit of work was involved with Parliamentary Counsel to get to a position where we, with a high level of confidence, brought the bill before the House.
Our bill proposed it would be a defence to a prosecution under changes proposed to section 26(1) of the Care and Protection of Children Act, namely a failure to report if a person believes, on reasonable grounds, that a child has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence or has otherwise suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm or exploitation. The defence is if the relevant child was of or over 14 years of age, if the difference between the accused person and the child is no more than two years, thus encapsulating the similarity of age defence used in some other jurisdictions, and provided there is no coercion of the child. We did not see the way it is worded now provided people, particularly health practitioners, with a defence in the event they fail to report.
I believe the Attorney-General indicated I had the wrong end of the stick initially. I stress I want to read the Hansard, however I am not sure you have the right end of the stick, Attorney-General. I know the government will not support it, so there is not much point taking up time. I thank everyone involved, both inside this building and outside, who helped in the preparation of this bill.
Motion negatived.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT (REPORTING
OBLIGATIONS) BILL
(Serial 51)
OBLIGATIONS) BILL
(Serial 51)
Continued from 18 August 2009.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Honourable members will undoubtedly recall debate in parliament in August last year on the government’s Care and Protection of Children Amendment Act 2009.
This debate focused on the government’s amendments to section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act relating to mandatory reporting obligations. The government’s bill to amend section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act was passed, with the support of the opposition.
We now have amendments put forward by the member for Araluen, a number of which are very problematic. A significant concern, carefully considered and resolved within the government’s amendment to section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act was the difficult situation parents, relatives and friends can be placed in if they are required to report to the authorities all sexual activity involving underage teenagers, irrespective of context. Within the government’s amendments, it remains a requirement to report any situation where a child may be at risk of harm or exploitation. This is, and always will be, our key focus.
The government’s amendments also addressed the situation where a child is engaged in sexual activity with an adult who sits in a relationship of ‘special care’ to the child. This is a relationship of trust, such as a teacher, sporting coach or health professional, where there can be a risk of abuse of the relationship and exploitation of the child.
The law now requires health practitioners to report sexual offences in children who are 14 or 15-years old, where the age difference between the two children is more than two years. The opposition amendment does not consider this need for discretion, and requires all people to report sexual offences in children over 14. This amendment would take us back to the very situation which raised serious community concerns around universal reporting obligations under the Care and Protection of Children Act early in the year. The opposition amendment would mean anyone, including a parent, who becomes aware a 15-year-old child is sexually active, would need to consider six elements and determine whether they are required to make a report.
The six elements are: the sexual act occurred after the relevant child attained the age of 14; the age difference between the relevant child and the other child is no more than two years; the other child is not a brother, half brother, sister or half sister of the relevant child; the other child did not coerce the relevant child to participate in a sexual act; neither person is liable to prosecution for an offence related to a sexual act, for example, procuring the relevant child to participate in a sexual act; and, the relevant child has not been caused harm, and is not likely to be caused harm by participating in a sexual act, or as a consequence of participating in a sexual act. Reading these elements I believe they are very complex. It is simply not realistic to expect ordinary members of the community to be able to apply the six-stage test.
I would like to consider one of these six elements in more detail, and that is the criteria which states the other child is not a brother, half brother, sister or half sister of the relevant child. This level of prescription seems unnecessary. On one reading, this implies if an individual becomes aware an uncle, aunt, or other relative of similar age is involving a child in sexual activity, the individual does not need to make a notification. I ask my colleagues to reflect on how comfortable they are with this element being a part of the legislation.
A further concern is the reference, in the opposition’s bill, to a child not being a victim of a sexual offence if the six-stage test in the bill is satisfied. It is not the purpose of the Care and Protection of Children Act to define criminal offences, nor is it about decriminalising certain sexual offences in the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code provides specific sexual offence provisions which relate to children. The definition of a sexual offence is quite detailed, and is found by cross-reference to the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act.
It is misleading and confusing to describe the relevant child in the bill as being: not the victim of a sexual offence. The purpose of section 26 is to relieve people of mandatory reporting obligations in relation to sexual offences in certain circumstances. The opposition’s bill confuses the obligation to report harm and/or exploitation of children with the commission of a criminal act under either the Criminal Code or the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. Again, this is too complicated for ordinary citizens to have to understand in order to know whether they should make a report.
I would also like to consider the use of the word ‘coercion’ within the amendment. Specifically, the amendment points to the issue of coercion needing to be considered by a notifier to determine if a sexual offence has occurred. The concept of coercion is not one which sits easily outside the context of the criminal law. Coercion is a legal concept relevant to the commission of sexual offences involving the absence of consent. These offences are commonly known as rape, or in the case children under the age of consent, underage sex.
Introducing this concept into legislation other than the Criminal Code has the potential to undermine criminal laws in the Territory. If this bill is passed by the House, the result would be we would have the Care and Protection of Children Act which says a child is not a victim of a sexual offence in these circumstances. We would also have the Criminal Code which says a child is a victim of a sexual offence in these different circumstances. Which one is right? How much confidence can members of the pubic have in the laws, and in this House as a law-making body, if we allow this to happen?
Requiring a reporter, under section 26, to consider the issue of coercion when deciding whether notification is required, adds an unsafe and complicated level to decision-making. This is particularly so given the dynamics of child sexual abuse are complex. The relationship between an abuser and a victim is rarely simple. The coercion element of the six-stage test required by the member for Araluen is not one the ordinary citizen can reasonably be expected to apply.
The member for Araluen also used the term ‘sexual act’. This is a new term – it does not appear in the Criminal Code or other related legislation. A sexual act is defined as: includes sexual intercourse, sexual penetration, and any other act of a sexual nature. This definition of sexual act is extremely broad. A person who is uncertain whether to report needs to address whether an act of a sexual nature has occurred. Again, this attempt at including new definitions only contributes confusion and complexity.
As I mentioned before, the Care and Protection of Children Act makes reference to a defined concept; that of a sexual offence. To introduce a further definition which ordinary citizens will be required to familiarise themselves with simply creates additional obligations. Reporters have to turn their mind to what it means to have engaged in any other act of a sexual nature in order to determine whether they have a reasonable belief a sexual offence has been, or is likely to be, committed.
Another flaw with the opposition’s bill is the concept of retrospectivity. This is not good public policy. Laws made by the parliament have a direct impact on the rights and liabilities of its citizens. It has the potential to make citizens liable for an act or omission after they have lawfully performed such an act or omission. To make something unlawful after it has been lawful, or vice versa, creates confusion in society and uncertainty in the laws of the parliament. The proposed amendments are unnecessary, unwieldy, complicated and potentially confusing.
The government’s amendment which brought clarity to this situation was only recently passed in August last year. As I outlined previously, education tools have been developed and community education has commenced. The consultation process in relation to regulations has occurred, and I look forward to reporting back on the results.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government does not support this bill.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, once again, no surprise. I guess there is something to be said for asking three or four lawyers the same question - you will get three or four different responses. That is the nature of things legal, I guess. I do not propose to repeat everything I said on 18 August when I introduced this bill, however it should be said the Law Society was supportive of the bill, and I am sure they did not get it wrong.
I could not hear all of the minister’s response, and I will look through the Hansard. Members will recall this bill arose as a result of unintended consequences of the way section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act was drafted. The government sought to remedy that problem by introduction of the Care and Protection of Children Bill (Serial 49), which was debated on 20 August last year. The points I made in that debate were made when I introduced the bill we are debating. The fact is, we have not been satisfied, so we disagree with the minister. Our view is the government’s proposal could have been so much better. I said, on 18 August:
- … it is not really a battle about who is right and wrong, it is really about making sure that the change is right. I am convinced, as are others, that our bills are better, which is why I am pressing the issue.
I am not shocked. I did hear the minister mention the six criteria we established in our bill. My view is six clear criteria are better than not articulating the reasons in the six criteria we proposed. We believe certainty is required in all legislation, particularly potentially sensitive legislation such as this. We are also concerned with the difficulty, which I maintain exists, in the government’s bill; that is, what about the children who are over 14 years of age but under 16 years of age? As I said on 18 August, the government’s act, as it now is, does not really contemplate or provide for children between 14 and 16. I said at the time:
- … you can have a 15-year-old who should fall within that provision and does not. In relation to the rest of the community, the government’s bill only provides that, if a child is less than 14 years, then they are included in the legislation, but it does not provide a provision for children between 14 and 16.
Children in that age group are still not adequately provided for in the bill. We sought to remedy that, along with other parts.
This is relevant to the bill we are debating now, and I informally put the minister on notice of it. When we were debating the government’s bill, serial 49, on 20 August 2010, we went into committee stage. There were discussions about the regulations the then minister was going to provide which would fill in some gaps as a result of the legislation the government initiated to remedy problems with section 26. I spent some time quizzing her about the regulations, and I asked what other people fall within the proposed regulations. As is not uncommon, the minister said: ‘We are going to fix it up with regulations and we will get there eventually’.
We are often asked to say yes to things where we do not have the regulations to consider, hence my questioning about the consultation involved in getting the regulations done and dusted, and what sort of time frames the minister would afford herself. She said:
- I would like to begin that immediately, as soon as I have the support of this House to see this amendment through.
They are the very regulations which are the other component to the government’s amendment to remedy the deficiencies of the original clause 26. I kept questioning her and she said:
- … I certainly would like to see it by the end of the year.
The end of the year was clearly a disaster for the minister, which is why she is no longer the minister for this portfolio.
I wrote to the new minister. We have exchanged several letters, however the one I have in my file is dated 5 February 2010. I asked when regulations would be forthcoming that would set out how mandatory reporting was to be dealt with by professions other than the health profession. In my letter of 5 February I said it was indicated these would be forthcoming without delay. I asked for the status of these regulations and, if possible, a copy.
The minister responded and said, in essence, they are not ready yet. I replied asking why. I do not believe I have received a response to that letter. I raised the issue because it was the other component to fix this problem, and where are we, May? I know the wheels of government grind ever so slowly, but that is a long time. I would be grateful if the minister could discuss this with me, or write to me so I know why this problem, which was so significant in August 2009, is apparently no longer as significant.
I have to put this on the Parliamentary Record, minister; in relation to this bill, and another bill on the Notice Paper, you wrote to me on 8 April 2010, as result of us bumping into each other in the mall, and you asked whether I would withdraw or withhold the bills. The minister said:
- As you are aware, the independent inquiry into child protection is well under way. While not being able to pre-empt the outcome of the inquiry, it is anticipated, given the terms of reference, that the inquiry would provide recommendations relating to the legislation. These recommendations may include amendments to improve the functioning of the child protection system.
I wrote back a polite, but short letter which said:
- No. Thank you for your kind invitation but, unlike the government, we believe that we can do things now without awaiting for the board of inquiry to deliver its recommendations.
The minister has one foot in both camps on this issue. He has said in media interviews he cannot wait, it is urgent; things have to be done. On the other hand, we will wait until the board of inquiry. Try to reconcile that with the budgetary allocation in yesterday’s budget. He is having a bob each way, and that is his prerogative.
If you read the findings of Greg Cavanagh released in January this year in relation to two inquests members will realise he proposed changes to the legislation. If he did not say so specifically, it was certainly by implication that these changes should be made now. Part of the reason the child protection system is in such a mess is that government ministers, over the years, have such a hands-off approach.
If there was a crime of political negligence several of you would be done because it is unimaginable, if you knew what was happening, you would not have acted. It tends to suggest either you were not told, or you did not want to know. I would have thought ministers would have wanted to know so much more; should have known so much more. I know some of the senior bureaucrats have gone, however I still do not believe that is a satisfactory excuse. I know those at the top of the bureaucracy tend to get paid more than ministers. You still get your ministerial salary. I think the member for Arafura was the best of all of you, however, almost without exception you have all been appalling in child protection.
When the Coroner of the Northern Territory, in two very significant child protection cases, gives you the sections of the act which need amendment, and given the sentiments from government and the new minister are: ‘I am going to fix this problem, it is urgent, it cannot wait, blah, blah, blah’, I was shocked you would ask me to hold off?’. We think things can be done now. That is why, late last year, we released a policy. Was it everything that needed to be done? No, because we accept the board, with whom I have met - I am not sure you had met with them at the time, minister. I know they are going to make a number of recommendations. I believe their recommendations, having talked to members of the board, will really shake up the system. From some of the discussions we had I am uncertain I am going to be supportive of all of them. The board is going to really shake up the child protection system, and I believe most of us agree that is what is required. I do not accept, nor do my colleagues, that we should sit around and not do anything until the board of inquiry delivers its recommendations.
There has been a delay. I believe 30 June is when the board is going to release its recommendations. I understand from the chair the recommendations might be in several stages. It might not be the big bang on 30 June; it might be over weeks or months after that date. I do not want to sound melodramatic, however, I do not believe children in care of the minister, or as it is these days the CEO, can wait. I do not believe the coroner had that in mind when he delivered his findings in January. We are not happy, and I do not believe you should be either, minister.
Having put those matters on the Parliamentary Record, I cannot push this matter any more. I thank the minister for his contribution, and can I take this opportunity, minister, of thanking you. We get on well, and we are committed to this area. Even though we will at times very strongly disagree, I believe the spirit with which we have dealt with each other thus far has been good for both of us.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Public Housing Issues in Alice Springs
Public Housing Issues in Alice Springs
Continued from 25 November 2009.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Deputy Speaker, my predecessor spoke on this motion in Alice Springs in support. I want to place on the record we continue to support the motion by the member for Araluen.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you participated in this debate in November.
Member for Macdonnell, you have 17 minutes remaining. Debate was suspended at the time of those sittings, so the clock will be set to 17 minutes. You have the call.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, six months is a long time to remember the things I said. I have had a quick look at it, and things have not changed in Alice Springs in those six months. It has become worse.
I know the member for Braitling has done much work, and I believe he has worked with the Minister for Public and Affordable Housing in looking at empty houses in Alice Springs. Certainly, the increase in violence in Territory Housing homes is not just Indigenous people to non-Indigenous people; there are many complaints coming from Indigenous neighbours as well.
I want to place on the public record the two different living styles we have introduced not only in Katherine, but in Tennant Creek, and also in Alice Springs. It is saying to people it is okay to have two standards. You have Territory Housing, you have this other style of living, and you have the town camps. Because the town camps are so low in repairs and maintenance and behaviour, people who come in expect to behave and live in that standard of accommodation. I believe we have to be brave enough in this House to talk and take action, and normalise the behaviour and conditions these people are living in.
Why can someone not do that? We now have the shires; it is a whole electorate, all with their hub towns. All could have one standard of living in a community which does not change when you come to live in Alice Springs. One standard; instead we have three different standards.
We have one standard of conditions when living in remote Aboriginal communities, and then you have two standards when you come into town. You have the choice of going to make a nuisance of yourself and live in overcrowded conditions in Territory Housing and humbug your neighbours, or live in a town camp in houses with up to 30 to 40 people. I know in house 13 and 14 at Hoppy’s Camp, at all times there are over 30 people inside Dicky Brown’s house, and inside the next house. Every journalist in this country has been to those two houses at Hoppy’s Camp and looked at them, looked at the conditions, and the way the people live.
That humbug pours out into the streets of Alice Springs. It does not stay at Hoppy’s Camp, it does not stay at Morris Soak, it does not stay at Larapinta, or Hidden Valley, or Indapa, or Karnte, or Little Sisters. It does not stay in that vicinity; it pours out into the streets of Alice Springs.
It is the same with antisocial behaviour in Territory Housing; it does not stay inside the house. It pours out into the street, and it humbugs neighbours next door, all the way down the street. I live at 51 Patterson Crescent, Alice Springs and I can hear people fighting and screaming in Lyndavale. The distance would be from parliament to the middle of the mall. You can imagine the elderly, the young, non-Indigenous people, Indigenous people, all being humbugged by these groups, or gangs of people who just come in, no money to get home on the bush bus, or staying until next week’s football. That is the kind of behaviour we are talking about.
We have three standards of living conditions, three standards of housing in all our regional towns like Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs. I suggest, now we have the shires, we have one standard, one stream, so people moving in from Papunya and accessing the services in Alice Springs know the conditions they enter Alice Springs on; that they behave. If they are in an overcrowded situation, either in a town camp or Territory Housing, they have respect for the town, their neighbours, and for the street.
That is the real problem, and Alice Springs has not seen any discussion on it since we had this debate in Alice Springs. It has become a very serious situation. It was reported recently a police officer had been hit outside the Royal Flying Doctor, and there was a gang of non-Indigenous and Sudanese fighting with bats outside Kentucky Fried Chicken. Unless we are brave enough to set the town in the right direction nothing is going to change. If we keep sweeping the problems people speak about underneath the carpet, the rubbish underneath the carpet is going to get bigger and bigger. It will turn into a mountain, it will turn into a volcano, and then it will explode.
It is important we talk about these issues and address them in a manner appropriate and necessary to alleviate the pressure the town is feeling at the moment. The town feels it every day.
Earlier I spoke about the town being cleaned up for certain people when they come into town; for example, the Chief Minister and the Police Commissioner. You have to see the problems we, as residents, see every day. You have to see the problems 24 hours at Royal Flying Doctor and Kentucky Fried Chicken because that is what people are complaining about. It cannot be cleaned up because someone else is coming into town for four hours or six hours. People can only make an informed decision - and the right decision - based on evidence in front of them. If they see a clean town with no humbug, no drunks, or no fighting, they are not informed to make the right decision on behalf of the residents of Alice Springs. They will make decisions based on the spin and propaganda someone else gives them.
Instead of going in for four to six hours, that person should stay for the weekend - go in on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, fly out Monday. You will see the real problems - the real problems that come out of Alice Springs; the real problems we, as residents, see every day. All you have to do is go to the little square near the Royal Flying Doctor Service between the hospital and Kentucky Fried Chicken and you will see people accumulating, people abusing each other, and kids under the age of 12-years-old walking around at 2 am.
On the Lightning Carnival weekend, there were two police officers standing at the town council and security standing outside Kentucky Fried Chicken, and they could not do anything. You could have pulled every police officer out that night, and you would not have been able to do anything in Alice Springs because the crowd was massive. There were over 300 people - kids included - walking around at 2 am. I was sitting inside the car at Kentucky Fried Chicken. I watched it all. I sat with a lady from Barunga and she watched it as well. These are the real problems Alice Springs faces every day. People can only make informed decisions, and the right decisions for Alice Springs, based on being informed and seeing things properly.
Territory Housing is just appalling; it is appalling. If they cannot look after the towns, how are they supposed to look after the communities? The communities are struggling. There are two elderly ladies, Yinku and Martha, at Docker River, who live in a humpy and pay rent to Territory Housing - absolutely disgraceful. These are people who have paid their dues to society. These are people who are in their seventies and eighties, and ought not to worry about Territory Housing taking over their housing, or not doing the repairs and maintenance. Territory Housing has the power to evict anyone and say to them: ‘You are going to go to crisis accommodation; you can no longer live here’.
The announcement made on the Tyeweretye Club accommodation - cheap accommodation, crisis accommodation, quick response to a huge problem in Alice Springs - do you think the alcoholics living in the creeks and up in the hills will use that accommodation? No, they will not, because it is dry. You are not allowed to go there drunk, or drink there, and you are not allowed to take dogs. Those people are there for one reason only, and that is to drink alcohol and get drunk.
We will target another group. The only people who will use that accommodation are people who come into town. They may not want to stay in the Territory Housing house with their families any more, but will take the cheap option of staying there while they are visiting their children at Yirara, visiting family on dialysis, or visiting their sons in gaol. You will get those people, but you will not get people who are in the creeks and hills of Alice Springs who are a huge humbug. Territory Housing really needs something at this moment to help alleviate the problem.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not specifically talking about the issues per se in Alice Springs, however an area mentioned in this motion was improving eviction processes for public housing tenants. That is an area the government needs to look at.
As people might know, there have been some changes to the Caravan Park act, and one of the constant criticisms of that act is it is difficult, at times, to remove people from a caravan if they are causing problems. My understanding is it is difficult sometimes for the government, which uses the Residential Tenancies Act as its methodology, to remove people from public housing. That process can be very slow, and can be very difficult, especially when people are able to access lawyers who turn it into quite a complex process. You find people who are a nuisance end up in the premises again, which is what you are trying to stop.
The government needs to look at the process available for people who are disruptive, and whether it can be made more efficient. If the system is not working, and people who should not be in those houses are there because of a long-winded process which gets tangled up in court, then the system needs reviewing.
I raise it not only in relation to this issue, but also the issue raised by caravan park owners in regard to long-term residency, which is an area that needs reviewing.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have several things. The new minister, the member for Johnston, said he supports our motion. We sought clarification from the Clerk and there is nothing preventing the member for Johnston contributing to this debate. It seems he rose, perhaps as a matter of courtesy, with words to the effect of: ‘I agree with what the other bloke said’. He is the new minister and presumably has some vision on how to get things done, how to fix yet another component of the Northern Territory which is busted pretty much - public housing. He did not want to contribute. I was surprised, as were my colleagues. I know the member for Braitling was very surprised. Maybe in adjournment tonight the minister, if he does feel strongly about the issue of housing, which you would expect being the housing minister, might want to outline why he did not contribute to this debate.
Members will remember in November a motion we put forward was the Assembly acknowledge ongoing problems with some public housing tenants who continued to interfere with the quiet enjoyment of others by antisocial behaviour, and second, the Chief Minister show his support for Alice Springs by addressing public housing issues, including providing more public housing and improved eviction processes for tenants who breach the terms of their leases.
The then minister, who failed so dismally and needed to be replaced, I note sits next to the member for Arnhem, who failed so dismally in child protection she needed to be replaced. How many chairs can you put on the sinking Titanic when there are only a few of you? The member for Arafura has said she is unwilling or, for personal reasons, unable be a minister. I do not know about the member for Nhulunbuy. What back-bencher do we have? The member for Fannie Bay is perhaps a little new; however you cannot continue with this series of disasters because you will run out of ministers.
The new minister who, several years ago was referred to by my colleague, the member for Greatorex, as a failed minister for Health, is now the minister for housing. It really would be very funny if it was not so serious. We now have a new minister replacing a bad minister for Health, who replaced the minister for Housing, who is really bad who, coincidentally, sits next to another really bad minister because she was replaced as the minister for Child Protection. Around and around it goes.
The then minister who was replaced, the member for Daly, said in the Alice Springs sittings in November he supported our motion, and we thank him for that.
I will get back to the member for Johnston, however. Some notes I took on 25 November will assist me put things on the Parliamentary Record the then minister did not discuss in his contribution, perhaps by accident, perhaps deliberately. He talked about the review of the Residential Tenancies Act, and that it would include the Antisocial Behaviour bill, as it did in about 2005. That was one of so many which arrived with great fanfare. That was the one Peter Toyne and Elliot McAdam said would fix everything and it is clear, a few years down the track, it has not. From memory, the then minister did talk about the review of the Residential Tenancies Act. My questions to him - and no doubt he will get these questions at estimates - are: has the review started, when will it be finished, when can we expect to see a new act, and will it be considerably better than the failed legislation it will hopefully improve?
The minister, in November, provided details on the number of unoccupied houses in Alice Springs. At that time 54 were being worked on, 23 were being repaired, and 19 were awaiting contractors. I will return to this. He did not answer how many houses had been unoccupied for three months. I am sure that was an issue which came up in the course of the debate. If I am wrong, no doubt others will correct me. I am fairly sure we asked how many houses were unoccupied, and how many had been unoccupied for a period of three months. We do not believe a three month unoccupancy rate is reasonable. We are interested in how many houses there are, and how many have been unoccupied for three months or more.
The new housing minister indicated, in either a radio interview or a newspaper - my notes say 3 February - there were 53 empty houses, and 17 were being worked on. I would like to know, as I am sure my colleagues the members for Greatorex and Braitling would, the current number of houses empty because they are being repaired. It is unsatisfactory. We know it. In October last year we had a good debate about housing in the Territory, and members from both sides talked about how it was unsatisfactory to have public housing dwellings empty, and how we did need to make them available for people to rent as soon as possible. There is no political difference on that issue. It is just the government is really bad at it and needs to improve.
The member for Johnston has spent some special time with the member for Braitling and, to his credit, hopped into a car with the member for Braitling and others and toured the electorate to see many houses which were unoccupied, and the extent of their disrepair. I am not privy to private and confidential discussions between the member for Johnston and the member for Braitling, however I gained the impression from the member for Braitling the minister was very pleased he could see these houses for himself.
The member for Greatorex, the member for Braitling and I held a media conference at an unoccupied public housing residence several months ago. We gave media a list of houses in our electorates - it was not a comprehensive list - and we said it was the number of empty public houses we picked up from a quick drive through our electorate. The bottom line is there are too many. At our media conference we went to a house where the grass was about that high. Coincidently, only the day before the member for Greatorex had a complaint from a constituent, a young mum with little kids, who was very concerned because of all the rain we had in Alice Springs there were snakes. I think a constituent of the member for Greatorex came across a snake. Why are those houses not being properly maintained? It is a public safety, public health issue, and it is just not good enough.
Although this minister failed with health, if he is committed to doing better than his predecessor - and I know the bar is pretty low - I would have thought he would look at where the hard-working people in the department are failing. There is no doubt they are failing in some respects because of the number of empty houses, and their state of disrepair. Something is not right and the minister for Housing clearly needs to fix it.
I would encourage the new minister for Housing to come to Alice Springs as often as possible. We both have outstandingly fabulous taste in music, which brings us a little together. I would not mind sharing a car with the member for Johnston, briefly, if he would like to accompany me around my electorate. We could put a CD on as we were driving around the electorate of Araluen; a bit of Leonard Cohen, a bit of Bob Dylan - we could set the scene. I would like the minister to visit my electorate. There is a sameness of issues with our urban electorates in Alice Springs.
The member for Nelson contributed briefly to this debate. He raised the issue of the review of the Residential Tenancies Act, and made some link to the caravan parks legislation which was debated in the last sittings.
The member for Nelson cannot keep having it both ways. He did not have the courage to take on a ministerial position in an Australian Labor Party-led government. Instead, I suspect driven by fear – and if I am wrong, no doubt he will correct me - he chose to sit on the sidelines so, when government did good things - and all governments do good things occasionally - the member for Nelson could say: ‘They are my guys’. When the government does bad things, he could say: ‘It has nothing to do with me’. People can say many things about every minister on the other side of this parliament - and, by God, I have; for eight-and-a-half, nine years, and I have meant every word of it. However, what they do have going for them is, right or wrong, they have the guts to make decisions. That is where the member for Nelson is on a sad, lonely, pathetic island. You, in political terms, live or die by the decisions you make, and ministers on the other side know that better than anyone.
For one member of parliament - the UFO-watching, chicken farmer from Howard Springs - to attach himself to this government which is overseeing a busted, pretty much everything, is unconscionable - and I am not saying anything new. I said it on 14 August. I made it very clear he had made, in my view, the wrong decision. If he wants to speed up the review of the Residential Tenancies Act or, indeed, wants any other outcome from government, have the guts to take on a ministerial position and sit in the Cabinet and make what must be, I am sure, on many occasions some very difficult decisions. It is sheer gutlessness to sit on the sidelines and have a bob each way. However, that is the member for Nelson. How on earth he can support this appalling government is beyond me. A lack of courage can, I guess, produce peculiar outcomes. This is certainly one very peculiar outcome.
In any event, I thank the former minister, terrible though he was, for supporting the statement. I lament the fact the new minister has not contributed. He did, at least, indicate his support for this motion, for which I thank him. I look forward to a musical tour through my electorate in due course. He can bring his own CDs. Most importantly, we could go around my electorate and see some of the housing problems which are of great concern, not just to me, but much more importantly, to the people I serve.
Motion agreed to.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 68)
(Serial 68)
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I indicate the government will not be supporting this bill.
The bill proposes to introduce a new offence titled Causing Death and Serious Harm Through Driving While Affected by Alcohol into the Criminal Code. This proposed new offence covers much the same ground as the existing offence of Driving Motor Vehicle Causing Death or Serious Harm contained in section 174F of the Criminal Code. The proposed offence is designed to be inserted, almost immediately after section 174F, in the Criminal Code.
Section 174F currently provides that a person who drives a motor vehicle dangerously, and whose conduct causes the death of someone, is liable for a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. If the victim suffers serious harm, the maximum penalty is seven years. There is no mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and no mandatory licence disqualification. However, the court has the power, under section 98 of the Sentencing Act, to make a disqualification order.
If a person was under the influence of alcohol or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle, section 174F(3)(a) provides this amounts to dangerous driving. There are similar provisions in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory.
Section 174F was introduced into the Criminal Code in December 2006 as part of the amendments reforming the law on homicide and endangerment offences. Prior to its introduction, the Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction in Australia which did not have a dangerous driving causing death offence. There was only the catchall offence of dangerous act, formerly section 154 of the Criminal Code.
Section 174F was designed, in part, to overcome the difficulty which existed in prosecuting driving cases under section 154 where, even if the prosecution could prove the driver was intoxicated, a further dangerous act also needed to be proved. The Director of Public Prosecutions advises section 174F has had that desired outcome.
I turn now to the contents of the bill. The key features of the proposed offence are that a driver will be criminally liable if a crash results from a driver breaching an Australian road rule, for example, speeding, failing to indicate, failing to give way, and the crash causes death or serious harm to someone, and the driver has a blood alcohol content of 0.15% or more, or fails to submit to breath analysis or provide a blood sample. There is no need to prove any connection between the crash and the consumption of alcohol. This is a problem. The maximum penalty for the proposed offence is 10 years imprisonment if death is caused, and seven years if serious harm is caused. In either case, the offender must serve a minimum term of 12 months imprisonment, and the court must disqualify the offender from having or obtaining a drivers licence for a period of 12 months.
The member for Braitling, in his second reading speech, implied the proposed offence would only apply to persons who have a drink-driving conviction, quote: ‘If you have not learned your lesson and kill or maim someone, this bill prescribes you must serve a minimum sentence of one year …’. However, as drafted, this bill does not have this limitation.
Statistics obtained from the Research and Statistics Unit at the Department of Justice show there have been 11 convictions under the current section 174F. In most cases, the minimum penalty has exceeded that proposed in the bill. In the one case in which a fully suspended sentence was imposed, the offender’s blood alcohol reading was 0.074%. He had no prior convictions and it appears the victim, who was a passenger in his vehicle, contributed to the crash. This example highlights not only the changes proposed by the bill are unnecessary, but another problem with this proposed offence, that of proportionality.
This bill, by imposing a mandatory minimum sentence, does not allow the sentencing court to consider proportionality. The problem of proportionality is exacerbated in the bill even further because there is no requirement for a nexus, a connection between the intoxication and the crash, and also, the same mandatory minimum is proposed whether the resulting harm is death or serious harm. In relation to this issue of nexus, the dangerous driving causing death offences in New South Wales and Western Australia provide that a person with a blood alcohol reading of 0.15% or more is deemed to be incapable of controlling a motor vehicle.
However, unlike the bill, the offences in those jurisdictions provide a statutory defence, namely, if the defendant can establish, on balance of probabilities, the incident was not attributable to the intoxication. No jurisdiction in Australia imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for dangerous driving causing death or serious harm. This is not unexpected because this offence is one where the level of culpability of the offender can vary considerably. It is therefore entirely appropriate for sentencing courts to retain the discretion to punish according to culpability.
For these reasons, we will not support this bill.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of this bill, being an amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to the creation of a specific offence and the imposition of penalties, and a mandated minimum penalty, for that particular offence.
The amendment simply seeks to insert a new section after section 174FA in Part VI Division 3A Subdivision 2 of the Criminal Code. I thank the Attorney-General for outlining the amendment in her contribution to the debate tonight. I will quickly go through it once again. The offence created is causing death or serious harm through driving while affected by alcohol, and that is an important point. A person is guilty of a crime if they drive a motor vehicle and a crash results from the driver breaching a road rule, and the crash causes death or serious harm to another person, and the driver has a blood alcohol content of 0.15% or more, or fails or refuses to comply with the requirement to submit to a breath analysis or provide a sample of blood.
This amendment refers to the word ‘crash’. Some time ago the traffic accident regime moved away from using the word ‘accident’ in favour of the word ‘crash’. The word ‘accident’ implies there has been some accidental occurrence, where the word ‘crash’ implies something more. It implies there is a greater level of responsibility attributed to the person involved in the incident. For example, if a person backed a car into another at the supermarket car park, that is an accident. The person did not intend to do it; however they still has a degree of culpability. The word was changed from ‘accident’ to ‘crash’ to better reflect the fact there is a degree of culpability in the incident.
In not supporting this bill, members on the other side of the House fail to recognise the increased level of responsibility implied in the change from using ‘accident’ to ‘crash’. One only has to look at the conduct of this government with respect to legislative change in the Northern Territory. Whilst they introduce legislation which is not contentious, anything they bring to this House which is contentious is generally dealt with by way of fluffing around the edges, failing to go to the heart of the matter or the underlying problem or issue they are trying to legislate.
Under this amendment, there is a new offence and a new penalty regime which matches the seriousness of the offence. If I turn to the Sentencing Act Part 2, General Principles section 5 talks about sentencing guidelines. Subsection (1) states:
- the only purposes for which sentences may be imposed on an offender are:
- (a) to punish the offender to the extent or in a way that is just in all the circumstances.
This new offence deals with a situation where a person drives a motor vehicle; they breach a road rule; they cause serious harm or death; and they have a blood alcohol content exceeding 0.15%.
I want to comment quickly on a matter the Attorney-General raised in her debate a moment ago. She mentioned no direct link between intoxication and the cause of the accident. I would suggest, by the very nature of human physiology and its reaction under the influence of alcohol, particularly at a level of 0.15% or more - and I have seen in my former career many, many people affected by alcohol to the degree of 0.15% or more, and I can assure this House if you are driving a motor vehicle with a high range of blood alcohol content, you are not fully and properly in charge of that motor vehicle. If you breach a law such as speeding, running a red light, going through a stop sign, the likelihood of the level of intoxication affected your judgment to such a degree you broke that road rule is extremely high.
With those levels of alcohol there is a direct correlation between your capability to drive on a road and adhere to the rules of the road. Look at the loss of judgment people have when they drink excess alcohol; look at Mitchell Street, Darwin on a Friday to see what I mean. We are talking about impaired judgment, and that impaired judgment will go towards breaching road rules.
I do not agree with the Attorney-General when she says there should be a link between alcohol and the cause of the accident. I believe that is inferred, and magistrates and judges have the capacity to infer many things in their assessing, judging and sentencing in matters placed before them.
Section 5(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act says:
- to punish the offender to an extent or in a way that is just in all circumstances;
Section 5(1)(c) of the Sentencing Act says:
- to discourage the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence;
That is called specific deterrent and general deterrent. The specific deterrent relates to reoffending if you are sentenced under that regime, because you know if you get caught doing that again you will face that period of imprisonment, or whatever sentence applies to that offence.
The general deterrent, which is also contained within that subsection, is sending a message to people in the Northern Territory who might find themselves in a position where they would drive a motor vehicle when they are exceeding 0.15%. A strong message needs to be sent to people who commit these offences that the penalty is one which reflects the seriousness of the offence. In this case it certainly does. We are talking about imprisonment for 10 years if the crash results in a death, and seven years if it results in serious harm, with a minimum period of 12 months.
Moving through those sentencing guidelines, section 5(1)(d) makes it clear that the community, acting through the court, does not approve of that sort of conduct in which the offender was involved. The imposition of this kind of sentencing regime would send a message to the community that the court does not condone it. Section 5(1)(e) is to protect the Territory community from the offender. A person who drives a motor vehicle at 0.15% or more and then goes out and kills or seriously harms someone as a result of their driving, is a person from whom the community needs protecting.
I move down to section 5(2):,
- In sentencing an offender, a court shall have regard to:
- (a) the maximum and any minimum penalty prescribed for the offence; and
- (b) the nature of the offence and how serious the offence was, including any physical, physiological or emotional harm done to a victim …
I do to have to say too much about that. It is obvious the result of a crash which causes serious harm or death does have serious physical, physiological and emotional harm for the victim, and certainly for the family. I note there are other parts of the Sentencing Act which I do not have in front of me, which talk about the impact on victims and, by extension, victims’ families. That is done through victim impacts statements which are presented to court. The provisions of this legislation fit, in my opinion, with the principles of the Sentencing Act.
I believe, on that basis, this is legislation which deserves to be supported and, I imagine, would be supported broadly across the Northern Territory. It is something worth having in place.
I want to talk quickly about section 6A, which are the Aggravating factors under sentencing. Section 6A(d) says the offence was committed without regard to the public safety. Again, this type of offending has no regard for public safety. It is another example of where this legislation is consistent with the principles of the Sentencing Act.
I want to talk about section 174F of the Criminal Code which the Attorney-General referred to, driving motor vehicle causing death or serious harm. Police officers, in my experience, look for and enjoy using legislation which is clear and unambiguous, and which carries with it less interpretation around the finding of guilt for offences. Section 174F of the Criminal Code does talk about driving a motor vehicle causing death or serious harm, however, when it comes to driving a vehicle whilst intoxicated and killing or seriously injuring somebody, that section is a little ambiguous. It leaves open to interpretation the seriousness of the offence, and how it might be dealt with under that section, including a new section put forward to this House today as an addition to the Criminal Code which tightens up those provisions.
It allows for police, in their interpretation of the offence - and certainly judges and magistrates in their interpretation of the circumstances around the offence, whether it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and provide some certainty for them around the sentencing regime which reflects the seriousness of the offence.
Part of this amendment talks specifically about alcohol and a level of alcohol of 0.15% or more, or failing or refusing to submit to a breath analysis or a blood test. Use of alcohol, over-use of alcohol, or alcohol use which contributes to offending in the Northern Territory is often taken as an aggravating circumstance to that offence. Section 7 of the Criminal Code specifically talks about intoxication. I will read part of this section because it is quite relevant to this debate:
(1) In all cases where intoxication may be regarded for the purposes of determining whether a person is guilty or not guilty of an offence:
- (a) it shall be presumed that, until the contrary is proved, the intoxication was voluntary; and
- (b) unless the intoxication was involuntary, it shall be presumed evidentially that the accused person foresaw the natural and probable consequences of his conduct.
That goes back to the heart of the amendment to this legislation before the House today. It talks about a person being involved in an accident, causing death or serious harm, and that person being intoxicated. By virtue of section 7 of the Criminal Code, that person must naturally foresee the natural and probable consequences of his conduct were within his grasp.
All this amendment does is create more certainty around the provisions of being involved in a motor vehicle accident where someone is seriously hurt or killed. It does not derogate from other provisions; it does not change other provisions. It simply adds another section, another offence to help police deal with the problem we have of drink-drivers causing accidents and seriously hurting or killing somebody. I do not believe many people in the community would object to having this legislation introduced. Ask survivors of road crashes, or the families of those who have been killed. I have spoken to victims and families of motor vehicle crashes …
Mr Elferink: I have delivered the death messages, as have several other people in this room.
Mr WESTRA Van HOLTHE: Absolutely, and I can assure you probably the single most difficult job a police officer has to do is tell someone their son has been killed in a car accident. It is the people left behind who would want to see this type of legislation brought in and, in many cases, it is not just because they want retribution. They do not want to punish this person. They want to see a regime of legislation which protects other people. The victims, and families of victims, of serious car crashes should be commended because many I have spoken to want just that. They want to change the law because they see there are glaring holes which allow offenders to escape justice. They do not want it for themselves; they want to prevent it from happening to anyone else.
This is a small amendment which adds one small section to the Criminal Code. I do not have a problem with it. I suspect most people in the Northern Territory do not have a problem with it. One thing which must be remembered - and I have reminded this House of this before -this side of the House represents, if you look at the 2008 election and the number of people who polled, just over 50% of the entire electorate of the Northern Territory. We have the support of many good folk in the Northern Territory to bring about legislative change which brings some sense to the carnage we see on our roads, and have seen over many years. I support this legislation - I am disappointed the government does not. I suspect they do not support it simply on the basis of politics. I believe the Northern Territory deserves far better.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. It is commonsense legislation. It is an amendment which is really tweaking the systems in place. It is recognition many of the systems we have are, in fact good. However, they need some amendment. They need some real guts behind them in certain areas.
The Attorney-General has said she will not support it because, on her calculations, only a handful of people have been convicted above the minimum sentence level. One was below the level at 0.075%, or some similar figure. It makes you wonder whether the government has the right data because this bill pertains to those that are 0.150%. Why did the member opposite bother to mention the one that fell under 0.07%? It really confuses me. What the member on the other side failed to do was mention how many people were maimed. It is often forgotten it is not just road deaths; it is those who are maimed or left with serious injuries that need to be considered as well.
That is what this bill does. It sets the benchmark so people understand if you drink and drive and are in a high range - and everyone knows if they are in a high range - you go to a functions upstairs, any function around the Territory - you know you are in a high range situation, you know you have had enough and are pretty well affected. The person who claims: ‘I did not know I was over the limit’, I say lied. That person has taken the role of God into their own hands, gone onto the streets, armed to the hilt with a weapon of 1.5 tonne to 2 tonne-plus. In the Territory we often have four-wheel drives reaching nearly three tonne. They have armed themselves with one of the biggest weapons on our roads and said: ‘To heck with the rest of society, I will drive in a high range and run the risk of killing someone.’ This puts the buck stop in. The benchmark starts with 12 months imprisonment if you kill or maim someone. In most cases, if you have killed someone and are in the high range, you receive a longer term than 12 months; there is nothing to stop that. This sets the benchmark. It sends the message drink-driving is unacceptable.
The member for Braitling has brought into parliament four amendments which deal with drink- driving and repetitive drink-driving, including high range. Those bills are sensible; they are logical. If you drink and drive, armed yourself with one of the biggest bazookas around, thrown it down the highway at anything from 5 km/h through to in excess of 100 km/h, it is a weapon. You are a lethal weapon on the road, and should be treated with the contempt that comes with it. You should be punished for your behaviour.
I will bring some reality to the government so they understand. They do not have the luxury of the experience four members on this side have, having served in frontline policing. Sometimes I think it is definitely not a luxury, it is a burden to carry, the burden I know four members on this side of the parliament will carry for the rest of their life. To go to someone’s door and say: ‘Excuse me, are you so and so?’ By that time, that person - you can see it in their eyes - they know this is one of the worst days of their life.
The reaction is something you do not take home; you get back into the car after delivering the message, after spending time with the person to ensure they do not have a heart attack, or they are incapable of controlling themselves. In Indigenous communities you need to ensure they have not started beating themselves senseless with rocks, or any other traditional response. It is one of the most horrific things you have to deal with. We have many great men and women in our Northern Territory Police Force who do this every day and do not question it.
I know as acting Sergeant from time to time running a shift, when we had to tell someone about the loss of their loved one there was never an argument. No one ever said they were not going to do it. They just quietly did it, because they know if it is not them it will be someone else, and the pain itself will not be as bad as the pain they deliver to the person that night. It is only equalled by the pain of going to an accident, crawling inside a car to see if someone is alive, knowing full well from the visual signs the likelihood of that person being alive is minimal, and knowing you have to help that person if they are alive.
Without going into particular detail, police were called to a location around Palmerston; crews arrived, I arrived on their tail and we were faced with - it was night time, as many of these accidents are. People drink during the day and think they can drive or do whatever they want, whether they are leaving the Humpty Doo pub or anywhere else. My team and I arrived at the location; there were four kids, not one of them reached much higher than my waist, who were alive. It was great; they were alive, and the team looked after these kids on a makeshift hospital on the roadway. There was a lady crying, obviously a little drunk - she was fluffing around. One of my officers ensured that person was not suffering injuries, or was going to wander off and get hurt, or escape.
We then had to see the person in the car, which was in the bush, except that person could not talk to us anymore – that person was dead. She was still strapped into the seat belt, upside down, dead. It took us a while. We had the Police, Fire and Emergency Services there, and we had a couple of ambulances there. The crash crew were there and started dealing with things. It took a while to work out the lady on the road with the kids was not the mother. Mum was in the car. Mum was the lady who did not speak to us anymore.
The lady on the road had only known the family for about eight hours. She had been having a drink at a house in Palmerston and decided to go for a big drive. She was driving; mum jumped in the passenger seat; kids in the back. Mum was dead; four kids were on the road; there is the drink-driver. From there it was up to the court. However, that is real. To tell that person’s partner: ‘Your kids are fine, but your wife is not coming home’ is real. How do you tell the kids mum is not coming out of the car?
If this legislation deters that behaviour it is worth every minute we have spent in this parliament. If this deters that kind of behaviour it is worth it. The government dismisses it because, from the brief search they have conducted on actual deaths, it does not amount to many, and most are above that sentencing. For this to give a greater warning to people that drinking and driving is not acceptable is worth every word spoken in this Chamber; it is worth every hour the member for Braitling has put in.
I believe members opposite are lucky they have not had to do what some members on this side have done. They are lucky because you do not want to ever do it.
Ignore the politics for five seconds and consider: is this going to be a better deterrent? Will this minimise the risk of reoffending by someone considering getting behind the wheel? Some days politics should be put aside and a dose of reality should be taken. This is one of those days, as has been the case with the three strikes policy around drink-driving. Unless you are delivering all those death messages, or having to deal with a drunk driver who wants to run away when they are caught, you have no idea and should, perhaps, listen a bit more - open your ears, your hearts, and your minds to what is a very sensible amendment.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Drysdale and Katherine for their heartfelt, compassionate stories about their days of policing. I understand other members on this side of the Chamber who were previously involved with the police force would also feel the same way.
Since coming to this Chamber, I have put forward a raft of measures regarding road safety, and spoken about road safety at length. This is one such measure, even though it comes under the Criminal Code not the Traffic Act. This measure, as one of the suite of interventions we have put in place regarding road safety, would send a clear message to people they would go to gaol. As mentioned in my second reading speech, it is not my intention to send people to gaol; it is my intention to send a clear message of the punitive approach we are seeking to take so the community changes its attitude to drink-driving.
The member for Karama mentioned no other jurisdiction in Australia takes this approach. I do not think that is a good enough reason. It was only part of her reason. However, I do not believe it is a good enough explanation. It was not about the politics, as the member for Drysdale said. It is about sending a clear message.
Much of the conversation of the current Transport Minister and previous Transport ministers around road safety since about 2005 has been the need for a bipartisan approach. I am at the point of frustration in not having an open hand by government to work together to send out clear messages, particularly drink-driving. We know it is the biggest cause of death and accidents on our roads in the Northern Territory. However, I will take the medicine the government is going to serve us by voting down this legislation.
I do thank my colleagues in the Country Liberals for supporting this bill to introduce a 12 month minimum imprisonment term for those who kill or maim while over 0.15% blood alcohol content.
Madam Speaker, I rest my case. There are other bills before this Chamber tonight which deal with road safety, and we will see where government takes those.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Mr Walker
Motion negatived.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 69)
(Serial 69)
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, the bill does not have the support of government. It imposes a new regulation which is difficult to administer and has, in our view, no real road safety benefit. The member for Braitling has not provided data to show his amendment will reduce the Territory road toll. There is no doubt drink-driving is a problem in the Northern Territory. Over a six year period, from 2003 to 2008, there were 13 756 instances where an offender was sentenced for drink-driving offences. The most common drink-driving offences, totalling 83%, were high range offences at 42%, and mid range offences at 41%.
The Northern Territory also has the highest rate of custodial sentencing in Australia for drink-driving offences at 24%, compared to 5% nationally. Of the persons sentenced, 64% were Indigenous. Approximately 21% of sentenced Indigenous persons had three or more convictions. Further, approximately 53% of offenders convicted of drink-driving offences were also driving without a licence or driving while disqualified. Indigenous people represent 89% of those in prison for committing traffic related offences.
The Traffic Amendment Bill (No 2) 2009 (Serial 69) proposes first time low range drink-driving offenders be placed on a restricted 0% blood alcohol content licence for three months and, if breached, will lose their licence for three months. To do this, the bill proposes section 24 of the Traffic Act applies to a person who has been found guilty of a first low range blood alcohol content offence. Generally, a person is not found guilty of a first low range blood alcohol content offence as police, in most cases, issue an infringement notice, or TIN. The payment of a TIN penalty, generally, does not constitute a finding of guilt for an offence. This issue has not been addressed in the draft bill presented by the member for Braitling.
To clarify, there is some difficulty in imposing a three month restricted licence requiring a 0% blood alcohol content based on payment of a TIN penalty for a first low range offence when that payment does not amount to a finding of guilt.
The member for Braitling’s bill goes on to impose, for breaching the 0% condition on the restricted licence for what is, in effect, a second offence, a mandatory minimum disqualification period of three months. We already have this penalty. This period of disqualification is consistent with the period for a low range offence under our current law. That is, you already lose your licence in the Northern Territory for at least three months if you are found to be driving under the influence twice within three years. Furthermore, under existing legislation, other zero blood alcohol content drivers who commit a second offence under section 24 are subject to an alcohol ignition lock period, in addition to a disqualification period.
Police currently do not notify the Department of Lands and Planning when they issue a traffic infringement notice. The proposed amendments will therefore require administrative changes, including system changes. To enable a restricted licence to be issued, the driver’s full licence will need to be cancelled, and a new restricted licence issued for three months, which in turn will be cancelled, and a further full licence reissued to the driver at the end of the three month zero blood alcohol content period.
The start date of the restricted licence will vary depending on how the offender actions the traffic infringement notice. The offender who pays the traffic infringement notice immediately will be issued a restricted licence and be subject to zero blood alcohol content conditions, whereas a driver who delays payment of their traffic infringement notice, may be able to continue driving for longer without being subject to a zero blood alcohol content limit.
I am highlighting some of the administrative issues associated with the member for Braitling’s bill. It is very difficult to understand what the real benefit from all this additional red tape would be. I point out the current maximum penalty for first time low range drink-driving offenders is five penalty units, or imprisonment for three months. There is also provision for the police to issue a traffic infringement notice for $200 and three demerit points. The current maximum penalty for a second low range offence is 7.5 penalty units, or imprisonment for six months. A second low range offence will result in a minimum three month licence cancellation imposed by the courts.
This government has introduced demerit points and alcohol ignition locks, targeting repeat drink-driving offenders. The current penalties are tough, and the proposed amendments by the member for Braitling represent an expensive, ill-thought out, and complicated system which does not really improve road safety. The member for Braitling advised he proposed to introduce his Traffic Amendment Bill (No 2) 2009 (Serial 69) in the November 2009 sittings in Alice Springs. He did not. He did it in February. The member for Braitling has had ample time to work through the issues which have emerged from the proposed amendments.
The opposition’s bill is costly to deliver, and will have no practical benefit. It appears to be of no real benefit as Northern Territory legislation. No evidence has been presented by the member for Braitling that the proposed approach will impact on the road toll. All it achieves is the introduction of a zero alcohol level document for drivers for three months if they are caught with a low-level blood alcohol content drink-driving infringement. Where is the evidence this amendment will work? We already have the same penalty provision of losing your licence for three months in place for a second low range offence. We are interested in, and deliver, evidence-based policy.
With this in mind, and the fact the current drink-driving penalties allow for substantial fines, alcohol ignition locks, imprisonment and loss of licence, it is clear these amendments will have no impact on drink-driving, but incur a high cost to administer.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the amendments.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I have to say the minister just talking should remain nameless, because what a joke - what an absolute mighty joke he has become! He pulled some figures out - great for doing the research; I appreciate that. He backed up many of the claims the member for Braitling has been putting forward to this House over the last year-and-a-half about drink-driving. It proves there is a need to increase penalties, to continue to hound people who drink-drive, and modify what we currently have as laws. I will keep it short because we have much to go on with.
The minister said: ‘It is all of these hard administrative issues and the red tape’. He is the biggest form of red tape we have in this House because he does not want to do anything that is a little hard. The reality is, it is not hard - not even close to hard. He went on to say: ‘If you do it twice, we will take your licence off you for three months on a second low limit’. That is, essentially, the same administrative cost as has been described by the member for Braitling - pretty much the same. I am not sure whether there would be a major change in cost. Perhaps it is cheaper than the first time. If we prevent one person from re-offending because you put into their head they should not drink and drive, then I believe this is great legislation.
With computers, with the advent of technology spoken about in this House by the ICT minister the other day, it proves we can do things quite easily. When the ticket is issued for a first-time low-level, it goes into the database that night. All tickets to be submitted before end of shift is the current policy within the Northern Territory Police Force. It goes into the Fines Recovery Unit, next day, straight to Motor Vehicle Registry. They type it into their computer – away; it is gone. Yes, he may not end up with a card which says he has a zero rating but, when the police officer does a check, for the next three months it comes up with a warning. Have you ever seen the warnings that come up on the bottom of the IJIS systems? Beep, beep, beep on movers. It shows there is something there - a bit like Pacman. It comes up, and the officer says: ‘You have a zero rating due to drink-driving’. Within a day, that is on the licence; on the database. When that person goes to the pub, has two beers instead of the three he had last night, goes on the road, comes across an RBT - because RBTs are a great tool, they do a great job - he is pinged; he is gone. He thought he could get away with it.
This is another great piece of legislation. It is simple, which may be why the minister has mocked it; it is so simple it might make a difference. His excuse about cost and red tape is a joke, because the very next offence has, essentially, the same outcome. It is a little tougher, however, if it helps in one case - we have heard it all around the world - if it saves one life, it is worth doing. It is such a simple amendment.
Yes, there are some areas where adjustment is needed. We need to modify computer programs. Every morning someone will have to enter this data and then it will be transferred straight to the MVR office – bang, it is in the system. We have many systems like that. The Commissioner of Police, first thing in the morning, receives documents that tell him what happened the night before? There are processes in place. Every morning there is a pile of reports – bang, there it is. ‘There you go, sir, you know what is going on’. The same systems will happen - done, done, done. A couple of clicks on keyboards here, there, and everywhere around the Northern Territory - the job is done. It is not hard.
It is no wonder in the budget you returned over $8m worth of revoted works this year. You do not want to do anything which might amount to work. You failed to deliver then; you continue to fail to deliver for Territorians.
Madam Speaker, this is the second time tonight we have spoken on an amendment which has great common sense. It goes one step towards helping to save Territorians’ lives, and the members opposite come up with the rubbish spoken by the minister.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, in May 2007, the member for Karama introduced the Transport Legislation (Road Safety) Amendment Bill (Serial 98). Part of these provisions was about targeting low-level blood alcohol content, that is, a BAC of 0.05% to 0.08%. She said in her second reading speech:
- The bill will introduce tough new measures for all low-level drink-drive offences, whereby an expiation of a 0.05 to 0.08 offence will now count as a finding of guilt and will be recorded by police. A second low-level offence within three years will result in an immediate licence suspension and a minimum licence disqualification of three months imposed by the court.
A subsequent offence within three years will result in an immediate suspension and a court imposed minimum six month licence loss.
It needs to be clear to all NT drivers and riders that these new penalties will apply to all low-level zero and 0.05 to 0.08 offences currently dealt with by a ticket. A first offence will result in a ticket and further offences within three years will be dealt with harshly.
I listened to the minister, and thanks for your comments. I listened to the member for Drysdale. The minister asked when is the point a crime is committed. My advice is paying the fine imposed by an infringement notice is sufficient to accept guilt, which was contrary to what the minister was saying. The minister also said he had difficulty understanding what benefit this approach will have. This approach is about trying to stop people drink-driving the first time - not waiting. The statistics he and I rolled out showed the high number of people at high range, and repeat high range, the high number at medium range, and the number at low range. There is an escalation of people who start at low range, go to medium, go to high, or go from low to high, because the penalties are too low at the low range. Over a period of time these new measures have been brought in, and the 0.05% to 0.08% offence came in, however the number of people who drink-drive on our roads is too high. To keep the penalty of a first offence at 0.05% as low as it is may deter some people, however, it is not deterring enough people from drink- driving.
I have brought this amendment bill forward because we need change in this area. We do not need to catch people, or put penalties in place when they are high range people, or repeat high range people, or they kill or maim someone; that is not the point. We send out clear messages through tough approaches. We have to reach the 18-year-olds who read 0.07%, or the blokes who have a couple of red wines at dinner, or a couple of beers after work. We have to hit them hard the first time so they do not reoffend. At the moment it is like a slap on the wrist and the message says: it is all right, you are only a little over, it is all right you are 0.07%.
If I was DUI at 0.55% hypothetically, government would be all over me; crucify me through the media. I would resign my job, not like the minister with a speeding ticket at 149 km/h and did not resign. I would resign; I would take a really tough penalty. This legislation is saying suspended for three months on the good behaviour component. That is not tough. That is not like losing your job; it is a message which says you cannot drink and drive full stop. You cannot be 0.01%.
This measure is trying to teach people who are 17, 18, 19, 20 or 21 - do not drink and drive. You have to come down hard on the first offence otherwise they will reoffend. In most cases they go from low to high rather than low, medium, high. That is a significant problem, and while government does not look at its drink-driving legislation we will see more accidents, more people killed on our roads or seriously injured, or injuring other people, or causing trauma to family and society, or public infrastructure will be damaged. A blowout causes concerns for the economy with more insurance claims payable. Whatever happens has negative effects.
As a parliament we have to be tough. I am not going to continue debating this. I am disappointed the government is not keen on supporting a small change to low-level offenders making them more heavily penalised for a first offence. I am really disappointed they are not supportive of that. Not personally disappointed - I am disappointed for the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory expects us to bring reforms to lower drink-driving. Putting more police on the beat to test people is not the answer. We have to get the message out that you should not be drink-driving. Regulate so people are penalised and will not drink and drive. There is no point getting them after the fact. This is the approach with health and education at the moment, and it is the same with drink-driving. It seems completely irresponsible.
This is a very smart, minor piece of legislation which has not been politically bounced around the media. It has been put forward with a view government and the Independents might support it. We do not want people in gaols. We get them the first time, teach them a lesson so they do not go to gaol the second time, because our gaols are full of drunks.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. I ask government members who think drink-driving is a serious issue to support this legislation, and have some real change for the Northern Territory.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 11
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 70)
(Serial 70)
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, the bill does not have the support of government. The Traffic Amendment Bill No 3 2009 (Serial 70) proposes the current impounding and forfeiture provisions under the Traffic Act be applied to driving unregistered vehicle offences. To achieve this, the bill creates a second class of impounding and forfeiture offence, a Class B offence, dealing with unregistered vehicles, including heavy vehicles. Currently under the Traffic Act, impounding and forfeiture provisions only apply to hooning offences.
In August 2009, the member for Braitling introduced the Traffic Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 38), which proposed to amend the existing impounding and forfeiture provisions within the Traffic Act to incorporate repeat drink-driving offences. He followed that up with this amendment bill, introduced in February 2010.
The Traffic Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 38) has now been withdrawn by the member for Braitling. Yesterday afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition’s office notified my office of additional amendments to the bill before us. For the member for Braitling to put forward amendments with the presumption the other draft bills yet to go through the parliamentary process, for example the now withdrawn Serial 38, will be passed, is a good example of how disorganised the member is.
Mr Elferink: You guys come into this bloody House doing this stuff on the floor.
Mr McCARTHY: It would appear the member for Braitling …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin! I would like you to withdraw that comment thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that he is disorganised, and the other word too.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Port Darwin.
Mr McCARTHY: It appears the member for Braitling has not thought through the amendments he puts before this House. This is typical drafting legislation on the run, and has failed in good legislation for the Northern Territory. He has been saying since August last year - more than eight months ago - that he wanted to debate new CLP legislation, and it still is not ready.
However, tonight’s debate is about the bill before the House. The proposed class B offences for unregistered vehicles will allow impounding and forfeiture where a second and subsequent offence occurs within five years. There is a range of reasons why people drive an unregistered vehicle, including ignorance of the law, financial hardship, language barriers, and personal oversight. The bill targets a very different pattern of driving behaviour than the existing hoon legislation. I acknowledge extending the impounding and forfeiture provisions to unregistered vehicles is one method of removing unregistered vehicles from the road network. However, I am not convinced the proposed amendments will be a cost-effective deterrent. Confiscation of vehicles is costly. It is a very expensive approach to address driver compliance which has very little benefit as a deterrent in relation to unregistered vehicles.
There will, potentially, be significant costs to police and government, and it is possible the value of many impounded vehicles may be such that their owners will fail to collect them from the impoundment. This means police will require impoundment yards across the Territory. Where will they be built? How will they be managed? Towing contractors in the bush are not exactly common so how are police going to get the cars to these yards? In remote areas, police may be the sole provider of storage for vehicles, and their ability to recoup costs on disposal will be very limited.
The object of the opposition’s proposed amendments does not attempt to close the gap for people from remote and Indigenous communities. It is against the law to drive an unregistered vehicle on the road network, and police already have the ability to immediately stop people from driving an unregistered vehicle. Current provisions allow police to issue an infringement notice for $200 where the vehicle has been unregistered for less than one month. If the vehicle has been unregistered for over one month, but less than 12 months, it is a $500 on-the-spot fine. Over 12 months will see a court-imposed sentence with a maximum of 20 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment.
The current penalties in place allow for substantial fines and imprisonment for driving an unregistered vehicle. I believe the member for Braitling’s amendments would be very expensive to implement and administer with minimal impact as a deterrent. The member for Braitling has not provided any evidence to show how this would work. We are interested in, and deliver, evidence-based policy.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the proposed amendments.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, surprise, surprise, the minister does not support the bill. Things have been brought on tonight by the shadow minister regarding alcohol and drink-driving. We have heard the minister talk about fixing the road networks. However, constantly, he says: ‘No, do not support that. Do not support that. We do not support that’. The only thing they support is speed limits. They want to whack in speed limits. They did it 12, 18 months ago, I think - it might be a bit more – a 130 km/h speed limit. The man who praises speed limits was very publicly caught speeding.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: I see the Chief Minister and the minister for - goodness me, what are you now, member for Casuarina? - fire hydrants - having a giggle. Yes, I was pulled up speeding. In fact, I have been pulled up speeding so many times in my life, I cannot recall. On my Facebook site, I have said my interests are basketball, politics, pig hunting, goose hunting, and driving very fast. For members on the other side, I am a self-confessed lead foot. However, I am not the person who comes into this House saying: ‘Oh, no, we need 130 km/h speed limits in the Northern Territory’. That is not me. I am not the one advocating 130 km/h speed limits. What I advocate is better roads; the Territory government putting money into roads to make them safer. This government fails constantly in fixing our roads and making them safe.
I remember when I came to the Northern Territory more than two decades ago. I drove up from Queensland, and there was a remarkable difference in roads in Queensland and roads in the Northern Territory. Across the border just outside Camooweal you are on an old dirt track, hit the Northern Territory and all of a sudden you have this beautiful, big, wide two lane highway taking you to Three Ways, then Katherine and Darwin. A magnificent road the whole way! To see the way it has deteriorated in the last few years is terrible. I travel quite regularly. I understand now I will have to report on those trips so members will see how often I travel down the track.
It is a disgrace the way the highway has deteriorated under this government. There are anthills on the side of the road two and three feet high, and when you see something that big you know the road verges have not been cleaned up for quite some time. An ant nest three feet tall does not appear out of nowhere in a short period of time. I understand they can grow quite quickly, a foot or a foot-and-a-half, but they certainly take a while to get to two or three feet tall.
You see grass six feet tall on the sides of the road; it is very difficult to see around bends, and the state of roads themselves – potholes. We saw the Barkly Highway washed out last year because the government would not clean out the culverts and drains; just let the road get washed away. They put it down to a record Wet. If you ring the Bureau of Meteorology, they say: ‘Oh no, these things happen quite regularly’. Oddly enough the Chief Minister says: ‘Oh, freaky acts of nature’. A freak of nature washed the road away that time. Funnily enough, it lasted pretty well for 20 years. Freak of nature strikes, unprecedented Wet, says the Chief Minister. The Bureau of Meteorology would not agree with that at all.
The roads are falling to pieces around us, and the government’s response is to put in speed limits and start raising revenue. When I saw the article in the newspaper about the minister being pulled over for speeding, I felt quite sorry for him, because it is something easily done on that track. It is a big long straight road, there is no one on it, and I can understand how the minister was feeling. I was feeling a similar way myself and succumbed to the desire to put the foot down and motor up to Darwin as quick as I could. It is not the first time I have been caught; I know it is a wrong thing to do. The reality is that those limits should not exist.
They exist for several reasons. One is because Labor governments right around the country, right around the world, are addicted to regulation in any state-style government but, more importantly, they have let the road deteriorate. Even if we had a change of government, it is very difficult to see how we could reintroduce open speed limits immediately, given the level of work needing to be done on our highways to bring them up to where they were more than 10 years ago. The roads were not too bad under the previous conservative government, but they have fallen away badly now.
I am not surprised the minister is not going to support this bill. I cannot see many problems in getting unroadworthy and unregistered cars off the roads. It was something I first noticed when I came to the Northern Territory from Queensland. In Queensland, you register the car once and, providing you kept paying your rego you never had to have a roadworthy check. Consequently, there were many of cars in Queensland that were falling to bits.
I remember my brother had an old Dodge ute which he drove around for many years. It was probably made back in the 1950s or early 1960s, and it literarily snapped in half one day when he was driving down the road. He hit a little bump or something like that. There is no possible way could you get away with that in the Northern Territory. Mind you, we were out bush on the farm, and it was not often driven on the road.
Coming to the Northern Territory was quite a shock for me. I had a cheap car, probably 10 or 15 years old, and I was quite surprised I had to take it in every year for a roadworthy check. I suppose that was one way we, in the Territory, ensure there are cars of a decent standard able to handle those roads.
I cannot understand why the minister would be reluctant to support some of the issues the member for Braitling raises as much of it is very worthy. I believe everyone is keen to see our roads cleaned up; keen to see less carnage on the roads, fewer accidents, less damage to vehicles, and roads treated properly. The government’s constant opposition to these bills seems like pigheadedness. I believe it is a disgrace. I sometimes chuckle at my friend, the member for Braitling’s, desire for bipartisan support on things, and I wonder how you can deal with members opposite because you can never trust them. He talks about bipartisanship, and I think it is an admirable goal.
You would think, by extending the olive branch, his opponent might say: ‘All right, Mr Giles, let us sit down and have a chat about some of these things and see if we can come to an agreement in some areas’. But, no, the minister stands up, proud as he is of the Northern Territory, no way known will he do any deal or negotiation with the opposition which, I believe, is sad.
One of my greatest laments about the Northern Territory is the state of the roads and the way they have deteriorated in the last 10 years. It is an absolute disgrace, and it is a complete symbol of this failed government we have.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fong Lim and the minister for their comments. I noted the minister was very keen to castigate me for introducing amendments yesterday. He would know Serial 38, the Transport Amendment Bill, was pulled last week for a new bill, which has been introduced. That bill was removed as a result of negotiation between the Minister for Transport and the member for Nelson relating to forfeiture of vehicles for repeat high range drink-drivers. As a result, Serial 70 relied on much information from Serial 38, and we had to make an amendment to that bill.
It took a long time between Alice Springs and last week to introduce the new bill, Serial 97, because we had to negotiate with the member for Nelson, ensure he was happy with the amendments, ensure we detailed exactly what he wanted, work with Parliamentary Counsel backwards and forwards; that is how it got to that point in time. When we realised the Serial 70 bill relied on Serial 38, we had to quickly make those changes and work with Parliamentary Counsel, and we only did that yesterday. That is when we gave them to government. For the ministers to whinge about getting those amendments earlier, bad luck.
Mr McCarthy: You could have introduced the amendments on the floor of the House.
Mr GILES: The way it works for me, there is myself, I have a secretary in my office, and a few research staff upstairs. The government has 22 000 public servants; 18 500 full-time equivalent public servants. There is an opportunity for those people to do the work and provide advice to the minister. That is how government works. To say he has not had enough time, enough opportunity, is just fairy floss. This is another excuse; another bit of verbal diarrhoea to excuse government not cracking down on road rules in the Northern Territory, whether it is drink-driving, forfeiture of vehicles, unroadworthy and unregistered derelict vehicles cruising all over our streets, past our schools, up and down the highway. It is not good enough our roads are in that condition.
We heard the member for Fong Lim talking about the open speed limit, the condition of the roads, and how feasible it would be to open up the roads on day one, or day 100, or whatever day it is, upon a Country Liberals government coming to power in the Northern Territory. We would not be irresponsible. We would have to check the roads; however the roads are in such poor repair it would take some time before we could open them up holus bolus.
We heard from the member for Fong Lim - and I have spoken about it ad nauseam - about the anthills and the grass six foot high on the edge of the road. They are dangerous conditions.
I spoke about it in the introduction of this bill in February. I said we do not want to be harsh on people and see their cars removed from them. We know in many cases those cars are in a bad condition because of the roads. We know their wheels are falling off and the suspension has gone because they are driving on dodgy roads.
It is a chicken and egg thing, or a catch 22 position; people do not want to have a dodgy car, they have one because the government is not fixing the roads. For public safety requirements, those cars should not be on the roads.
This bill looks to change that. We want to see our roads cleaned up so you do not have cars coming down the street with windscreens missing, exhaust pipes dragging on the ground; a wonky wheel wobbling because it has only has one stud in the wheel. These things are not safe. Surely government cannot support this. What happens when someone is killed? What happens when someone is killed by a car being driven down the highway without brakes, because that is what occurs? You might not see it coming down Mitchell Street every day, but go outside Darwin and you will see it all the time.
I am out in the bush all the time, member for Stuart. I am sure you would see these cars driving around too. You would see them driving from Lajamanu into Katherine, or into Alice Springs, or the back way through Tennant Creek, if you can find that way. You know how bad those roads are, you know how bad the cars are driving on those roads. They are driving around Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs. Darwin or Gove, wherever it is, and they are not safe on the roads. They should not be driven. You are not prepared to invest in the roads.
I note you have not spoken about your roads budget in Budget 2010-11. There is not much in there. There was no flashing media release on the roads budget.
I understand why these cars get to a derelict state. I understand why these cars are on the roads. Government is responsible, in many cases, for these cars being in this condition because they have not repaired the road. They are not suitable to drive a Ford on, they are not suitable to drive a Holden, Falcon or Commodore on – they are not suitable. In my role as a parliamentarian, in my shadow position of Regional Development, Transport and Indigenous Affairs, I go out bush often. It is part of my job to go to communities, talk to people, see what is going on, see if there is any regional development going on in the Territory - which seems to be some sort of oxymoron for this government. That is part of my job.
In my job, I am given a car. The rules will not allow me to have a four-wheel drive. Some might say there is a backhanded reason behind some of this. I am given a sedan to drive. That sedan, as government would well know, is not able to go on these dodgy roads; it would turn into a derelict car and be unroadworthy. That is exactly what would happen …
Mr Knight: Get a plane. I have the answer.
Mr GILES: Maybe I need CLP Air to fly me around.
To undertake my role as Indigenous Affairs and Regional Development spokesperson, I need to go out bush. The Department of the Legislative Assembly will not give me a vehicle that will allow me to go out bush. If I took my sedan it would become a derelict car and be unsafe on the road. I, and any passengers in the car, would be unsafe.
Government has to reach a happy medium where they either fix the roads or get the dodgy cars off the road. They are the ones causing harm to people and emotional and financial distress. People spend their hard-earned cash to buy a family car, put their money into it, drive home once and find their car is literally ruined. We do not want unroadworthy cars on the road, so let us fix the roads. What happens when they have an accident, or they cannot travel on the road at sufficient speed to reach their destination, whether they are on their way to give birth, go to hospital, go to a meeting - whatever.
We see more impact on the health system - people are having accidents because of dodgy roads. We see more impact on the health system because people are driving around in derelict cars. There is a much wider span here. You can take an extreme, right-wing view and say: ‘Get these dodgy cars off the road’, if you can use that expression. However, you have to take the other side of the argument; the roads are so bad and the government will not fix them. We see so much wasted money …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Greatorex! Member for Fong Lim, the member for Braitling has the call.
Mr Tollner: Of course, he does, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr GILES: We see so much money wasted by the Northern Territory government all the time. It is highly prevalent in the budget of 2010-11. Some of that money should be going towards roads on a value-for-money basis to ensure people have open access to and from town, so their cars can be safe, and their families can travel in a safe manner. It is not occurring.
We have the growth town policy, where 20 towns have been selected mainly for political reasons. Those communities need to identify the economic opportunities so they can be future growth towns. Some places have not been selected, for example, Santa Teresa. There is 60 km or 80 km of dirt from the tar to Santa Teresa, as you leave Alice Springs and go past the airport. I am not an economist; I do not know what the economic opportunity for Santa Teresa is. However, one could be for the community to seal the roads so people could drive into Alice Springs every day to work. That would be a simple solution for those people, or they could become involved in agriculture or horticulture. We see people in that community with dodgy derelict cars. People have died on that road in the last few years, whether drunk or otherwise. Do not get me started on the government’s lack of attention to drink-driving!
There are many opportunities for the Northern Territory government to reduce the number of derelict cars on our roads so we do not need to introduce this legislation.
I will sum up by saying since being in parliament I have attempted to bring forward road safety measures, punitive or otherwise, to reduce the road toll in the Northern Territory, to reduce accidents, to reduce the number of people maimed or severely injured on our roads, and reduce the emotional and financial hardship people have, whether caused by themselves or others. It is very important, and something I will continue to do.
If I need to produce tougher road safety reform when the Country Liberals are in government I am prepared to do so.
If the government is not prepared to move on anything it is very sad, and a blight on this government. This is a Labor government, and we know Labor loves regulation and controlling people’s lives. Whether it is a small piece of legislation, the forfeiture law, low range or high range alcohol, minimum sentencing for those who kill or maim, the government has literally gone soft, and is very reluctant to do anything. I find it appalling they would be so reluctant, especially since the Road Safety Task Force and the reforms which came through after 2006, and what did we see, the road toll up, up, up.
Last year was a low year, which was good; zero would be best, we all agree on that. This year we are seeing an increase in the road toll. We need to perform better than we are. Looking at the figures from two years ago, we are the worst in Australia on a per capita basis. Compared to third world countries, we are one of the worst for our road toll.
We have measures being put forward today that the government is reluctant to support, and I find that devastating. I will be interested to see, when we get to item No 15(Serial 97) - forfeiture and impounding of cars for repeat drink-drivers - if that passes through parliament. That bill was negotiated with the Transport Minister and the two Independent members of this Chamber. If government was to renege on that bill, that would be the time for the Country Liberals to stop putting forward reforms on road safety, wait until we win government, put forward strong policies such as these, and implement a road safety reform package which would further build on that introduced in 2006. We seek to reduce the number of road deaths and accidents on our roads we continue to see under this Labor government.
Madam Speaker, I urge members to support the bill. I hope the member for Nelson and the member for Macdonnell support me in this bill. I hope the government has realised the Transport Minister was wrong to voice his concerns on this bill and to state that the government would not be supporting this. I hope he overturns that decision. I commend the bill to the House; this bill goes further on road safety reforms.
Motion negatived.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION (SERVICE MEDAL) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 74)
(Serial 74)
Continued from 17 February 2010.Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting amendment the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. We all recognise and value the enormous work our police officers do across the Northern Territory in protecting and serving our community. Policing is a very rewarding but very challenging vocation, and it is not a job for everyone. It is a job where police officers do their shift, whether it is a day shift or a night shift, and can never be certain what they are going to confront on any particular day of the week. It is a challenging vocation and our police do a magnificent job by and large, across the Northern Territory.
The Territory’s unique geography, demography and climate create a demanding environment for our police officers and, with all due respect to the police in Tasmania, it is not like being a police officer in Tasmania. The geography of the Northern Territory, the remoteness of many of the postings, the challenges which police face in the Northern Territory are quite different from police forces elsewhere in Australia. Our men and women in the police force serve and protect the community with courage, perseverance and integrity. Our police are valued and respected by the community and supported by this government. We have a very strong track record as a government in supporting our police force.
The Police Services Medal recognises a 10 year meritorious service as a sworn member within the Northern Territory. Section 166A of the Police Administration Act was enacted in October 1983. Section 166A(1) established the police medal would be awarded for 10 years’ continuous meritorious service. Section 166A(2) was enacted to ensure sworn members of the Northern Territory Police who were seconded to other organisations such as the National Crime Authority and the Northern Territory Police Association, would have that service recognised for the purposes of section 166A(1). It was never intended service by sworn members in a police force in another jurisdiction would be recognised in assessing eligibility for the Northern Territory Police Service Medal. Section 166A(2) is anomalous to the extent it can be construed as recognising such service for the purpose of awarding the Northern Territory medal.
In considering the bill before the Assembly, the following facts are salient. No other police jurisdiction in Australia recognises outside service in the eligibility criteria for their respective Police Service Medal. The bill does correct an anomaly in the provisions enacted by the government back in 1983. The Commonwealth government has also announced a national police service medal which will recognise meritorious service across one or more jurisdictions, and we are waiting for the time frame for that bill to be brought to the Commonwealth Parliament.
The Northern Territory Police and the Northern Territory Police Association value the police service medal and, after consultation with the police and the police association, the government is happy to support the bill before the House.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, thank you. As a former serving member of the police force, I know most officers take this bill seriously. They honour and cherish their service. Some leave with many scars; some leave with greater memories and choose to forget the scars. The service medal acknowledges service by those officers, male or female - and I acknowledge we discussed the Women’s Policy statement earlier. Officers serve with great dignity. In the Northern Territory they serve in terrain you do not see anywhere else in Australia, except perhaps Western Australia.
I served in remote Central Australia, in Kintore, as officer in charge of the police station. Certainly, I saw both sides of the border. I acknowledge the people on the Western Australian side at Kiwirrkurra do not really care about the border. The border was nothing for them; it was a place to stop and hunt some bush turkey. There was a wetland area and drew in the bush turkey. These were things you learned when you served in remote police stations. It is certainly not Sydney, Brisbane, and certainly not the Gold Coast.
That is why I support the bill moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It demonstrates it is the Northern Territory police force you have served for 10 years.
I agree there is a definite need for a national police service medal; I believe that is very important. I was a member of the police memorial opening in Canberra as part of the catafalque party representing the Northern Territory. I marched with a great deal of pride as a representative of the Northern Territory. I know other members of the Northern Territory Police Force who marched from old Parliament House felt the same.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, it now being 9 pm, it is time to adjourn the House. You can continue for up to 10 minutes, or you can continue your remarks in the next General Business.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, I will continue for a very short period of time.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, that is fine, up to 9.10 pm.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Do we close this off at the end of that? Whatever is remaining?
Madam SPEAKER: The rules do not really allow us to do that. They allow the person who is on their feet to do that, unfortunately. I will consider it while the member for Drysdale is speaking.
Mr MILLS: I would take about 30 seconds.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. I would recommend the member for Drysdale sat down now, and I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I have been in this Chamber for 11 years; it is good to have something brought into the Chamber. Things I have said on many occasions give me cause for hope that proposals such as this are understood and, at the right time, receive the support of government.
The purpose of this is to reinforce our respect for our hard-working Northern Territory police officers, and I sincerely welcome the support of government on this bill.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time, unaccustomed as I am to getting to this stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the Assembly now stands adjourned.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, tonight I acknowledge and honour the work of around 450 Territory midwives on this special day, the National Day of the Midwife. The worldwide celebration of midwives begun in 1992 as an initiative of the International Confederation of Midwives to celebrate midwifery, and to create awareness of midwife roles in the community.
What an important and vital role these honourable, registered health professionals play in our community, particularly in the Territory where we have a population of younger families compared to other jurisdictions. The role of midwives in the pregnancy and birth process is so very important, and really makes a difference to women and their families during pregnancy, birth, and the postnatal period. Our dedicated and hard-working team of professionals play a huge role in giving new Territorians the best possible start in life, and ensuring the provision of collaborative maternity care for all Territory women.
The Northern Territory Department of Health and Families employs around 450 midwives in the five Northern Territory hospitals, remote health centres, and community-based programs, including the Midwifery Group Practices in Darwin and Alice Springs, and the Home Birth Program.
It is fitting that, in a week’s time, Territorian midwives will be honoured by the 2010 Northern Territory Nursing and Midwifery Excellence Awards. The Northern Territory Nursing and Midwifery Awards recognise the achievements and ongoing hard work of midwives and nurses in the Northern Territory across a range of categories. Early this year, I called for Territorians to nominate their favourite nurses and midwives for this year’s awards. It goes without saying nurses and midwives are absolutely critical in the delivery of health services across the Territory. This year, 27 midwives have been nominated under the Midwifery Section of the awards, which is fantastic. I look forward to announcing the winners next week at a presentation at Parliament House.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, earlier this evening I spoke about road safety reforms in the Northern Territory, particularly in relation to drink-driving, and reforms in the drink-driving area. I spoke about the importance of members of this Chamber taking personal responsibility and following their principles. My belief is people should not drink and drive. People can make a mistake going over 0.05% as they try to balance where their blood alcohol level is in their own person, and things can change depending on how much sleep you have had, how much you have eaten, and all those things which affect a body’s mechanics.
In my resolve to stop people from drink-driving, I have to take responsibility and not drink-drive myself. I said during my speech if I was caught drink-driving that I would resign. It would be quite responsible for me to resign my portfolio. There is no way I could address my portfolio of Transport while I pursued a road safety message. People in voter land who accidentally go over 0.05%, deserve a second chance. Maybe people think if I went over 0.05% I deserve a second chance. However, I believe it is important to uphold those principles and not be a hypocrite.
I want to place that on the Parliamentary Record; when I said I would resign I meant I would resign. I would resign from my portfolio of Transport if I was caught drink-driving. I can say that because I do not drink and drive. I thought it was important to clarify that.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as a regular visitor to this fair city, I have had reason to come in contact with the health system on two occasions. The first one was accompanying a person who engaged with the Department of Health and Families, using private practitioners. Whilst on that journey, I was very impressed at the level of professionalism, respect and care which was offered to the patient I was supporting. The system was easily engaged, responsive, and sensitive, and everything progressed according to plan.
On the weekend I came into contact with the public health system in the case of an emergency, once again supporting a good friend. This was a random sample. I was a visitor to Darwin and I had cause to take this patient to the Royal Darwin Hospital, Accident and Emergency Ward - a random sample - a member of the public arriving at the hospital door with only one objective, to seek assistance from Accident and Emergency. I was very impressed with the service provision and health professionals who engaged in their daily business in offering health support and health service to the public of the Northern Territory.
I will reiterate, and members in this House like to repeat themselves to drive the point home - a random sample. Why I am so proud of the health professionals that represent the Department of Health and Families is this is normal procedure; best practice is normal procedure which happens to all patients who present at the hospital.
I spent most of Sunday and Monday there, leaving late Sunday evening. I witnessed a very complex, a very intense day of health professionals going about their business, including St John Ambulance and the Northern Territory Police. It was wonderful to witness the collaborative nature of professionals working together in the interests of the patients that presented, and there were many; it was a full on exercise all day and into the night until the time I left.
One thing I did observe was patients on Sunday evening - which was a very busy day and staff working very hard - had become abusive. I was there as a member of the public, supporting the person I attended with, and found it very difficult to understand the logic of members of the public that were abusive to staff. However, on the occasions it did happen staff acted in a totally professional manner, in an extremely supportive and sensitive manner, dealt with each individual complaint on a needs basis, and administered the proper care and attention. I really take my hat off to witnessing that in such a difficult environment and one where I was quite shocked. It definitely reflects human nature, it probably represents people in pain and under stress, however it was something I was not comfortable with and not usual for me to understand. These health professionals were working flat out to the best of their ability.
Everything went well in my experience and, of course, with my good friend, who was the patient. That person was discharged late on Monday, and it was an experience I wanted to share with the House. I have heard much comment and debate on our health system in the Northern Territory. There are extreme challenges in that environment. We try to do our best, and everyone works to the best of their ability.
To the staff of Royal Darwin Hospital and Darwin Private Hospital, I put on the public record my vote of thanks, as a person who has come from a regional area, who has sought out medical care for my good friend, and who received the best professional care which could be made available. It was a pleasure to experience such a professional outfit.
I conclude by saying this was not out of the ordinary; this was business as usual. I present at hospitals very infrequently, so it was definitely a very good moment as a parliamentarian, as a Territorian, to witness such high professional standards and such wonderful work.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a combination of things. One is from my electorate base, and the other from one of my portfolio bases, the Art sector.
On 31 March 2010 Exit Art, contemporary youth art of the Northern Territory by Year 12 students of 2009 from around the Northern Territory, opened at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. I was invited to go along, and with great pleasure went. The member for Fannie Bay, Mr Michael Gunner, had a formal role to play, and did a good job; we had a chat.
The stars of the show were not only those on the catwalk, but the students who put their Year 12 projects together, which are now on display in the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. I will skip to the official part; the winner for this year’s Exit Art 2009 Exhibition is Lindsay Bott. She is from Darwin High School, and it is charcoal and paper, and these are self portraits. If you can imagine shining the torch under your face and getting different reflections, that is what she has depicted in charcoal drawings. It is quite a big piece of work. That work will be on display in Parliament House at a later time. Lindsay, congratulations, it is a fantastic piece of work. It is a big piece of work; it is around 2.5 m to 3 m long, and some 600 cm high. It was a beautiful piece of work.
I want to talk about my electorate. Students from Palmerston High School had work at Exit Art, and one which particularly took my eye was from Jessica Beumer. It was titled Mangroves in the Wet. It is a watercolour on paper, and it is 72.5 cm by 91.5 cm; a fairly large piece of artwork. Watercolours, but the detail is fantastic. She said it came from experiences bow hunting with her father in the Australian bush. I must say, not only was it in her pieces on exhibition, but in her portfolio which was in another part of the museum. She has a fantastic grasp of her talent and skills, which were depicted through her portfolio.
Jessica Beumer had two pieces on display of the same size. The second was called Last of the Fires, Beginning of the Wet. It was a fantastic piece. I wish we could write these pictures into Hansard; the reality is we cannot. They were fantastic pieces of work, and I advised Jessica and her parents of this at the gallery. She will do extremely well if she follows art as a career, or a supplementary career.
Jake Spalding of Palmerston High School also had an entry titled Furry Friends (not Forever). It is ink on paper, and is an inspirational piece about his two cats, Midget and Spyder. Unfortunately one went walkabout and did not return, and the one left behind, Midget, always appeared to be sad. He depicted this in his ink on paper piece. It was a fantastic job for a young person to express considerable emotion in his artwork.
Another one which particularly took my eye was a young lady from Palmerston High School called Amy McCaw. Going, Going is the name of her artwork. It is ink on shellac coated board. Essentially, it is ink on vinyl; the vinyl was used as a stamp piece and stamped onto paper. That left four pieces - absolutely beautiful! They were depictions of the plight of the panda. She expressed her feelings that they were going, going, gone. As she applied each ink print onto the next paper the image slowly faded leaving the image of going, going, gone. She also had a stuffed toy panda wrapped with tape saying: ‘danger’. This was not allowed in the exhibition due to excessive sensitivities. I have advised her she can display it in my office any time because I believe it is a very good, in-depth expression of art and she should be allowed to show it.
Three fantastic students from Palmerston High School, and they did a great job.
This exhibition was fantastic. I spent quite some time there and enjoyed the work I saw. I have been lucky to travel to museums around Australia, and I have experienced Indigenous art in Central Australia. And this exhibition rates as highly as the more flamboyant pieces I have seen. I would suggest everyone take a look.
Lauren Burrow of Darwin High School, did a portrait of her father on canvas. It is really an exaggeration of features and is hard to explain other than I thought it was an amazing piece. The colours were beautiful, more reds and yellows than anything else, however it was the way she saw her father in exaggerated features - sometimes a stern character she claims. I think it was a beautiful piece. Do yourself a favour, go and have a look because it was fantastic.
The member for Katherine will talk on one of his students because he came with me today. I took him because the works were that fantastic.
Breanna Harwood from Tennant Creek High School did a glass platter. It was fused in slumped glass; another beautiful piece. You see all the knick knack shops around Darwin; this is an example of students creating their own work. If that person could create a Territory flag for me I would be rapt. It is beautiful.
Alexandra Henggeler from Kormilda College painted an orange lilium oil on canvas. Oil is not used much today. It was a beautiful floral piece and quite large - over 1 m by 0.7 m. Just beautiful!
Charlee Horni, Darwin High School, depiction of Growing Pains - paint on canvas. It was growing pains of age. The last one is John Jamieson of Darwin High School, Natural Euphoria, a pictorial pieces on canvas. It is of youth exploring the boundaries of life without any form of artificial stimulation. This was natural euphoria. They were jumping off things and exploring nature at its best. Some thinking went into that. It is a photographic piece. Natural Euphoria is a perfect example you do not have to take illicit drugs to have a great time.
Get into the Museum and Art Gallery; it is open until 11 July 2010. The Museum and Art Gallery is free and this exhibition is worth seeing; it is as good as any other around Australia.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we have witnessed an occasion I am very pleased to see in parliament; the Police Administration (Service Medal) Amendment Bill 2009 proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and, on a rare occasion in this House, supported by the government. Although this is not a major bill compared to some legislation passed through this House, it is an important bill to members of the police force.
Support by government of an opposition bill is something I hope will occur more often in this House. Unfortunately, the system of government we operate under tends to work against this process. Party-political affiliations can also rise to the forefront. In this case, both parties recognised the importance of our police force and the work they do in our community.
I may live in utopia when it comes to parliamentary operation, however I hope more issues can be resolved through cooperation, dialogue, and a freedom from party-political constraints. We tell people outside this House to work together peacefully to solve their problems, yet when they come to this House they wonder if we really mean what we say because, at times, it seems we do not believe what we say.
There have been some tumultuous times in this House over the last seven or eight months. Some people agree and some disagree on decisions I made late last year. However, if one good thing comes out of that - and it is something I will continue to promote - I believe we should work together more. We are a small jurisdiction of 214 000 people; we have 25 members with some of the smallest electorates in Australia. On some issues the differences might be large, however, on many issues they are quite small.
The history of the major parties throughout Australia shows they have come closer to the centre in their philosophies and ideologies than when I was a young man growing up in the days of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party. There were clear distinctions between those groups.
I do not believe because we follow the Westminster system and it is a tradition to uphold from the 1600s, we should all stay the same. We evolved. What happened in the 1600s? They burnt witches, they beheaded or hung heretics. They did many things which we do not carry on as traditions. This table in front of us has us two swords apart. Have you seen members with a sword and scabbard? No, we have not. I do not believe there is anything wrong in questioning the system of government we have; it is not treason. In 1600 if I had said it, I might have been duly despatched.
Our community expects us, as politicians, to work cooperatively. We should do that as often as we can, yet we are tied to a system which is about aggression. To oppose another point of view we tend to show aggression. We might, at times, twist the truth - we have to highlight the negatives so that is what people hear about.
I tell many people to read the paper and see the SMS or text messages, most of which is whinging. People might have some complaints, however at times we forget how lucky we are in this country. We have a great country. In the Northern Territory we have the best part of the country, yet sometimes we drown ourselves in issues, in worrying about problems, and are not grateful for the great place we live in.
There needs to be more cooperation as seen today. People in the Northern Territory expect us to work together. The reason we are here is to help people of the Northern Territory improve their living standards, their lifestyle, and make it a better place for everyone to live. The Chief Minister agreeing to an opposition bill may be a small thing, however, there is that famous statement: from little things big things grow. The Territory might lead the way as a parliament of consensus rather than a parliament of opposition. That would be a far better place for us to work. We would get more done and, in many ways, bring the community along with us. They know that, as a group, we are working for the benefit of everyone in the Northern Territory.
I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for introducing the bill, and the Chief Minister for supporting it. I say well done, and let us see more in the future.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I respond to comments made by the member for Nelson. He lives, in so many ways, in another world. He believes the different sides of politics, the different political parties, should get together and agree on everything. I do not. It is nave in the extreme to make such a suggestion in any state or territory parliament or the federal parliament.
I suspect it is a somewhat different story in local government, however, at this level of government, there are two political parties for very sound reasons. We do disagree on many things - like it or not, that is the reality.
That seems to provide to the member for Nelson a level of discomfort. I do not know what motivated the member for Nelson to get involved in politics. All politicians in this House share a commitment to making a difference and making a contribution. That does not mean you would expect politicians from different political parties, with different political philosophies and beliefs, to agree on everything.
It is very convenient for the member for Nelson, who attached himself to this rotten, rancid government to say let us get together and have a chat. He is in a position to demand everyone see things the way he does, and every issue can be resolved by sitting down and talking about it. I say that is nave in the extreme. Robust debate is a good thing, and the foundation of our democracy and parliamentary system. Why the member for Nelson is so discomforted by that, I do not know. He seems to have a quaint view about modern day politics; people should discard their fundamental political, deeply held and different beliefs, and get together and have a chat.
That does not represent modern day politics; it does not represent the Territory parliament. The fact he is holding the Labor government to ransom is disgraceful. We have a Chief Minister who can barely govern; he governs with one hand tied behind his back; he is beholden to the member for Nelson, who is beholden to the Chief Minister. It is a very unattractive, mutual relationship. No wonder so many Australians are laughing at the Northern Territory. Yet, the member for Nelson thinks everyone needs to get together and have a chat. I say again, it is nave in the extreme.
The member for Nelson had an opportunity to ensure the Northern Territory went to election. He did not want that. The member for Nelson had an opportunity to be a government minister, a minister of the Crown, part of a Cabinet, and to make a difference. However, through, what I believe to be sheer cowardice, the member for Nelson elected not to take up that opportunity.
We now have a situation where, when the government does some good things - and on occasions this government does - he says how happy he is with that decision. When he is not happy with the government decision he has a go. The member for Nelson has a foot in both camps. He should have made a firm decision to go with the party of his choice, to be a member of Cabinet, a member of government. He declined, and he declined to go to an election. Yet, he has the audacity to sit on the sidelines and say: ‘Notwithstanding deeply held and fundamental views, political views by both parties, they should all get together and have a chat’. That might be the member for Nelson’s position; it is certainly a very quaint view of modern day politics not shared by me.
It is noteworthy that government has agreed to legislation brought into the parliament by the opposition. It is not the first time the government has agreed with the opposition. The opposition often agrees with government. On occasion - too regularly it would seem for the pious member for Nelson - we have robust debate because there are different sides of politics representing differently held views and positions on a range of issues.
I could not resist the opportunity to comment, in the dismissive way I have, on the comments made by the member for Nelson. People in my electorate, and those outside my electorate with whom I speak, say if he wants everyone to get into a room and have a chat he should go back to local government.
Occasionally there are issues equally robustly debated in the local government arena. However, in a state, territory or federal parliament, to suggest everyone should agree on everything is nave in the extreme, and insulting to the deeply held and different political beliefs people on both sides of parliament have. With those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016